Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Description: 1 more complaint has been filed against Nithyananda in USA for FRAUD AND DECEIT, RACKETEERING, CIVIL CONSPIRACY and UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, CHEATING US GOVERNMENT and donors by misusing the char...

1 more complaint has been filed against Nithyananda in USA for FRAUD AND DECEIT, RACKETEERING, CIVIL CONSPIRACY and UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, CHEATING US GOVERNMENT and donors by misusing the charitable, tax-exempt 501(c) status. The complaint has been filed by several ex-donors against Nithyananda, his secretaries and his organizations, allege that Nithyananda and his secretaries blatantly misrepresented Nithyananda as a Brahmachari, sanyasi living a simple life (monk), and misrepresented the organizations as charitable institutions benefitting the society and extracted crores of rupees from them. But in reality Nithyananda’s intentions were to cheat the public, devotees and the US government by misusing his position as the leader of these organizations and charitable tax-exempt (501(c)) status of his organizations to privately benefit from it (refer pg 50 of complaint). The ex-donors have demanded the return of around $800,000 (around Rs. 4.5 crores) collected from them through fraud and deceit. However, the court could award 3 times that amount (almost Rs. 14 crores) as compensation, if the racketeering charges are confirmed in a trial.
But the details of the allegations and evidence presented in this latest complaint shockingly exposes well planned efforts and criminal intent of Nithyananda , (Accused no. 1 in India criminal case) and his secretaries Gopal Reddy Sheelum (@Bhaktananda, also Accused no. 2 in India criminal case) and Siva Vallabhaneni (@ Sachitananda, also Accused no. 3 in India criminal case) to cheat the public and government.

SHENOI KOES LLP

Allan A. Shenoi rcsB #122566]
2
Daniel J. Koes [CSB # 192513]
175 South Lake Avenue, Suite 202
3
Pasadena, Cali fomia 91 I 0 I
4
Telephone: 626-792-2300
Facsimile: 626-792-2311
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
F l l ~ P
CLER U.S. OISTR.ICT COl)RT
FEB 2 7 2ot3
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
DR. MANOHAR SHINDE, an Individual;
10
RAMESH BHUT ADA, Individually, an
11 as Trustee of the BHUT ADA FA MIL
12
FOUNDATION; BHUT ADA FAMILY
FOUNDATION; SlY A T A YI,
13 Individual; DR. BALA BHA T,
14
Individual; DR. NEIL CARMAN, an
Individual; and HITEN DALAL, an
15
Individual,
16
17
Plaintiffs,
vs.
18
19
NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION, an
Oklahoma Corporation; LIFE BLISS
2
° FOUNDATION, INC., a California
21
Corporation; NITHY ANANDA
DHY ANAPEET AM TEMPLE &
22
CULTURAL CENTER, a California
23 Corporation; DHY ANAPEET AM
24
CHARITABLE TRUST, a business entity
form unknown; SWAM I
25 NITHY ANANDA, an Individual; SlY A
26
VALLABHANENI, an Individual; GOPAL
SHEELUM, an Individual; and DOES I
27
through 30.
28
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR:
I. Fraud & Deceit
2. Civil Conspiracy
3. RICO
4. Rl CO Conspiracy
5. Unfair Business Practices
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COt\ I PL:\1 NT
! 000 .H :\\7 DOC:
COMES NOW Plaintiffs DR. MANOHAR SHINDE, RAMESH BHUT ADA,
2
3
Individually and as Trustee of and for named Plaintiff the BHUT ADA FAMILY
4 FOUNDATION; SIVA T A Yl; DR. BALA BHAT; DR. NEIL CARMAN; and
5
HITEN DALAL complain of Defendants NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION; LIFE
6
7
BLISS FOUNDATION, INC.; NITHY ANAND A DHY ANAPEET AM TEMPLE &
8
CULTURAL CENTER; DHY ANAPEETAM CHARITABLE TRUST; SWAMI
9
10
NITHY ANANDA; SIVA V ALLABHANENI; GOPAL SHEELUM; and DOES
II
through 30, demand a trial by jury, and on information and belief allege as follows:
12
JURISDICTION
13
14
I. The jurisdiction of this Court is founded on 28 U .S.C. section 1331 because
15
this action arises under 26 U.S.C. section 50l(c) ("Section 501(c)") and 18 U.S.C.
16
17
section 1961 et seq.
18 2.
As herein more fully appears, in this Civil RICO case, defrauded contributors
19
20
sue Defendants for associating together as part of single, common enterprise and
21 using their positions within various inter-related alter ego entities to use ( 1) the mails
22
(interstate or intrastate) and interstate wires (e.g., e-mail, Internet chat, telephone,
23
24
wire transfer, etc.) to advance and conceal their scheme to defraud Plaintiffs by
25
providing false information (and concealing material facts) about, inter alia,
26
27
Defendants' non-compliance with Section 501(c) and how contributors' money
28
would be utilized, thereby inducing Plaintiffs--and other contributors--to contribute
COMPLAINT
:oom..t537 ooc:
2
3
large sums of money based on that dishonest information and (2) a scheme to defraud
that enables Defendants to obtain funds under the custody or control of financial
4 institutions.
5
PLAINTIFFS
6
7
3.
Plaintiff DR. MANOHAR SHINDE ("DR. SHINDE") is an individual and a
8
resident in the City of Northridge, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
9
10
4. Plaintiff RAMESH BHUT ADA is an individual, and a resident of the city of
11 Houston, in Harris County, Texas.
12
5. RAMESH BHUT ADA is also the trustee of and is suing for and on behalf of
13
14 the BHUT ADA FAMILY FOUND A TlON ("BHUT ADA"}, a separate Plaintiff,
15
which is a corporation established under the laws of the State of Texas.
16
17
6.
Plaintiff SlY A T A YI C'T A YI") is an individual and a resident in the City of
18 Houston, County of Harris, State of Texas.
19
20
7.
Plaintiff DR. BALA BHA T ("DR. BHA T') is an individual and a resident in
21 the City and County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
22
8.
Plaintiff DR. NEIL CARMAN ("DR. CARMAN") ts an individual and a
23
24
resident in the City of Austin, County of Hays, State of Texas.
25 9.
Plaintiff HITEN DALAL ("DALAL") is an individual and a resident in the
26
27
City of Cerritos, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
28
COMPLAINT
:ooo>-t5>7 Doc:
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S DEFENDANTS
2
I 0.
On information and belief, it is alleged that Defendant NITHY ANANDA
3
4 FOUNDATION (CA Filing No. C2680947) ("NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION")
5
is an Oklahoma corporation, which at all times relevant has been doing--and
6
7
continues to do--business within the jurisdiction of this Court at 5271 San Bernardino
8
Street, Montclair, California 91763 (the "Montclair Property"). At all times relevant
9
IO
herein Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION held itself out-- and holds itself
II out--as an American tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation purportedly in compliance
I2
with Section 50 I (c).
13
I4
II.
On information and belief, it is alleged that Defendant LIFE BLISS
15
FOUNDATION, INC. (CA Filing No. C285I623) ("LIFE BLISS") is a California
16
17
corporation, which at all times relevant has been doing--and continues to do--business
18 within the jurisdiction of this Court at the Montclair Property. Defendant LIFE
19
20
BLISS held itself out as and holds itself out as an American tax-exempt, nonprofit
2I corporation purportedly in compliance with Section 501 (c).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
On information and belief, it is alleged that Defendant NITHY ANANA
DHY ANAPEET AM TEMPLE & CULTURAL CENTER (CA Filing No. C279478I)
("NDTCC") is a California corporation, which at all times relevant has been doing--
and continues to do--business within the jurisdiction of this Court at the Montclair
Property. Defendant NDTCC held itself out as--and holds itself out as--an American
:(H)034S37 DOC:
COMPLAINT
4
tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation purportedly in compliance with Section 50 I (c).
2
3
Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's insurance policy listed that it is
4 doing business as Defendant NDTCC.
5
13.
On information and belief, it is alleged that Defendant DHY ANAPEET AM
6
7
CHARITABLE TRUST also known as Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam ("the TRUST")
8
is a foreign business entity, form unknown, to whom the other Defendants instructed
9
10
Plaintiffs and other contributors to make their checks payable from time to time.
11 14. Defendants NITHYANADA FOUNDATION, LIFE BLISS, NDTCC and the
12
TRUST are collectively referred to as "NITHY AN ADA ORGANIZATION" because
13
14 (I) each entity is under common ownership and control, (2) each entity is but an
15
instrumentality or conduit of the other entities in the pursuit of defrauding
16
17
contributors such as Plaintiffs and (3) disregard of the separate nature ofthe entities is
necessary to prevent an injustice upon Plaintiffs and Defendants' creditors.
19
NITHY ANANDA ORAGANIZATION'S ALTER EGO ENTITIES
20
21 15. SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants controlled not just
22
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION, but numerous other instrumentalities, by their
23
24
joint day-to-day management by the same persons, interlocking boards of directors,
25
operating from the same location, using the same telephone number, having the same
26
27
person serve as CFO of several of these entities, sometimes listing each other as dbas,
28
COMPLAINT
{00034537 DOC;
freely moving funds between these instrumentalities, joint fundraising and joint donor
2
lists, etc.
3
4 16. Some of the other interrelated alter ego entities include, but are not limited to
5
Nithyananda Governing Body; Ananda Yoga; Nithyananda Foundation OK;
6
7
Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam OK; Nithyananada AZ; Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam
8
WA; Nithyananda TX; NTHLEAP; Nithyananda Foundation WA; Nithyananda
9
10
Investments; Nithyananda University; Nithyananda San Jose; Nithyanada Yoga;
II
Nithyananda Anna; Nithyananda Vedic Temple; Dhyanapeetam Hindu Temple;
12
Nithyananda Sacred Arts; Sacred Arts; Nithyananda Youth Foundation; Life Bliss
13
14
Galleria; Bliss Investment Corporation (CA Corporation No. C3297l25); Ananda
15
Business Solutions, LLC (CA Corporation No. C2ll3485); Ananda Consulting LLC
16
17
(CA Corporation No. C2l3485); Nithyananda Temple Arts, LLC (CA Filing No.
18
2007260 I 0 177) (cancelled September 14, 2007); Nithyananda Capital Management,
19
20
LLC (FL Filing No. L07000 118170) (inactive as of May 12, 201 0) ("Nithyananada
21 Capital"); Nithyananda Investment Fund, I, L.P. (FL Filing No. A0700000 1299)
22
(inactive as of May 12, 201 0) ("Nithyananda FUND"); Nithya Advisors, LLC (FL
23
24
Charter No. L07000 11817) (inactive as of May 12, 20 I 0) ("Nithya Advisors");
25
Nithyanada Foundation (OH Filing No. 1660986) ("Nithyananda Foundation OH");
26
27
Nithyananada Dhyanapeetam of Columbus (OH filing No. 1743089) ("Nithyananada
28
Dhyanapeetam OH"); Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam, LLC (CA Charter No.
COMPLAINT
:oooJ..t537 Doc:
2005200 I 0060) (dissolved); Nithyananada Dhyanapeetam of New York (NY filing
2
3
No. 364341 0) ("Nithyananda NY"); Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis (MO
4 Filing No. N00846823) ("Nithyananda MO"); Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of
5
Bloomington (IL Filing No. 65946904) (dissolved); and Nithyananada
6
7
Dhyanapeetam of North Carolina (NC Filing No. Ill 0529) (dissolved)
8
("Nithyananda NC"). The above list is not an all-inclusive list of NITHY ANANDA
9
ORGANIZATION'S "alter ego" companies (the "interrelated" and/or "alter ego"
10
11 entities).
12
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
13
14
17. SWAMI NITHY ANANDA ("SWAMI") also known as Sri Nithyananda
15
Swami or Paramahamsa Nithyananda, is an individual and NITHY ANANDA
16
ORGANIZATION'S Leader.
17
18 18. On information and belief, it 1s alleged that Defendant SlY A
19
20
Y ALLABHANENI, also known as Siva Yalcabhaneni, Swami Sachitannanda, Shiva,
21 Sachit or Sachit Swami ("SlY A") is an individual and a resident in the City of
22
Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California. SIVA was one
23
24
of Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's co-founders--along with SWAMI
25
and other individuals. SlY A was a President of the International Governing Body
26
Commission of Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam and Nithyananda Mission (CA
27
28 Corporation No. C3257947) ("Nithyananda Governing Body"), Swetha Enterprises,
COMPLAINT
:oo0345_17 ooc:
Inc. ("Swetha") and Nithyananda Cultural Center. SIVA was also an Incorporator of
2
3
Ananda Yoga Foundation (OK Corporation No. 2112030999) ("Ananda Yoga"),
4 Nithyananda Foundation (OK Filing No. 2112031162) ("Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam
5
OK") and Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION as well as a Member and
6
7
Registered Agent of Nithyananda Investments, LLC (CA Filing No. 20073111 0064)
("Nithyananda Investments"). SIVA was not an uncompensated volunteer because
9
10
he was employed by NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and some of these
II
interrelated alter ego entities and received compensation. A California Secretary of
12
State filing identified SIVA's business address as 928 Huntington Drive, Duarte,
13
14
California 910 I 0. On information and belieC it is alleged that SIVA's current
15
business address is 9720 Central Avenue, Montclair, California 91763. SIVA has
16
17
sworn in a 2010 lawsuit he commenced in the State of Washington that he is a
18
resident of California. SIVA sheltered assets under his own name such as an interest
19
in Search by Rank, LLC, which a devotee intended to contribute to Defendant
20
21 NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION and thereby took items of value from
22
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION and aided NITHY ANANDA
23
24
ORGANIZATION and its Founder to hide assets of NITHY ANANDA
25
ORGANIZATION.
26
19. On information and belief, it is alleged that Defendant GOPAL SHEELUM
27
n also known as Bhaktananda Swami, Bhakta Swami, Swami Bhakta or Bhakta
COMPLAINT
;oom-153 7 DOC:
('"GOPAL") is an individual and a resident in the City of Duarte, County of Los
2
3
Angeles, State of California. GOPAL was a President of Nithyananda Yoga &
4 Mediation University (CA Corporation No. C2946592) ('"Nithyananda University"),
5
Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of Seattle (WA Corporation No. 602763974)
7
("Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam WA"), Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of Houston (TX
8
Corporation No. 0800980079) (voluntarily dissolved April 3, 20 II) ("Nithyananda
9
TX"), and NTHLEAP (CA Corporation No. C2641655) (suspended September 9,
10
11 2008) as well as a Director of Hindu University of America, Inc. (FL Corporation No.
12
N34702) ("Hindu University") and a Registered Agent of Nithyananda Spiritual
13
14
Healing Research Foundation, Inc. (CA Corporation No. C2851586) (dissolved
15
March 26, 2007) ("Nithyananda Research"), which are interrelated alter ego entities
16
17
of NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION. GOPAL was not an uncompensated
18
volunteer because he was employed by these inter-related entities and received
19
20
compensation. The California Secretary of State's records identify GOPAL's
21 business address as 928 Huntington Drive, Duarte, California 910 I 0. On information
22
and belief, it is alleged that GOPAL's current business address is 9720 Central
23
24
Avenue, Montclair, California 91763.
GOPAL has sworn in a 2010 lawsuit he
25
commenced in the State of Washington that he is a resident of California.
26
20. Defendants SWAMI, SlY A, and, GO PAL as well as the unnamed individual
27
28 DOE Defendants are ostensible agents with apparent control over NITHY ANANDA
:oo03-t5J 7.[)()(':
COMPLAINT
9
ORGANIZATION and will be collectively referred to as the "Individual
2
Defendants."
3
4 21. The Individual Defendants controlled NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION
5
and were paid to be on Nithyananda Foundation's Board; Siva from 2004 to
6
7
November 2007 and again from 2010 to 2011; Defendant SIVA's wife, Ragini from
8
2006 to 2007 and again from 2010 to 2011; Defendant GOPAL's wife, Jyothi, from
9
10
March 2005 to 20 12; and GO PAL himself from 2004 to 2007. SWAMI--along with
II
the other Individual Defendants and their spouses--exercised control over every
12
single asset of NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and their interrelated alter ego
13
14 entities and utilized those assets for their own personal benefit, including the benefit
15
of their family members.
16
17
DOE DEFENDANTS
18 22. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued as DOES I through 30
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue Defendants DOES I through
30 with fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants
are ascertained, Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint.
23.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe--and based thereon allege--that each of the
Defendants is responsible in some other actionable manner, for the events,
happenings and omissions referred to herein and caused the damages proximately
resulting to Plaintiffs, and each of the Individual Defendants was a co-conspirator of
;ooOJ.t537.DOC!
COMPLAINT
10
his or her or its co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this complaint was
2
3
acting within the course and scope of the conspiracy.
4
GENERAL STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS
5
24.
Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants arise out of their individual
7
knowledge of, agreement to, participation In, and concealment of their fraud,
8
conspiracy and racketeering scheme to defraud Plaintiffs--and many other
9
contributors--out
10
of millions of dollars by providing false information (and
11 concealing material facts) about the true nature of NITHY ANANDA
12
ORGANIZATION'S activities and how contributors' money would be utilized
13
14 (supposedly) to benefit NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION, thereby inducing
15
Plaintiffs--and other contributors--to contribute large sums of money based on that
16
17
dishonest information, and for their participation in--and then secretly aiding in
18
stripping from NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION assets after they recognized
19
20
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S liabilities for its wrongful conduct.
21 25. Each Defendant's misrepresentations and/or concealment of material facts
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contributed to leading Plaintiffs to believe that (I) each entity in NITHY ANAND A
ORGANIZATION was not making any profits or operating for the benefit of any
individuals and was otherwise acting as a valid non-profit organization in compliance
with Section 50 l (c)'s requirements and (2) each entity in NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION and its leader (SWAMI) stood for the values and principles he had
!00034537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
l 1
publicly propagated. In actuality, (A) each of the Defendants participated in a
2
3
fraudulent scheme to secretly strip each entity m NITHY ANAND A
4
ORGANIZATION and its interrelated alter ego entities of their assets to avoid paying
5
creditors such as Plaintiffs; (B) each of the Defendants knowingly ratified, endorsed
6
7
and adopted and then concealed from Plaintiffs the fraudulent conduct of the
8
Defendants, including NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S leader (SWAMI); (C)
9
each of the Defendants authorized, directed or actively participated in tortious
10
II conduct with each entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION; and (D) each of
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Defendants consented to and approved the unlawful acts of the other Defendants.
VENUE
26.
Venue is proper in this Court because (I) a substantial portion of the events and
omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in San Bernardino and Los Angeles
Counties; (2) NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION maintained offices in San
Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties; and (3) there is personal jurisdiction over
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and the Individual Defendants because they
regularly conducted activities in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties.
SWAMI WAS NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION'S LEADER, MANAGING
AGENT AND ALTER EGO
26 27. At all relevant times, NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION'S principal,
27
28
creator, co-founder, chief, primary or most important person, ostensible, managing
agent and alter ego with the full authority to speak and act on NITHY ANAND A
:ooOJ..J537.ooc:
COMPLAINT
12
ORGANIZATION'S behalf, who was regularly held out by NITHY ANANDA
2
3
ORGANIZATION as its most important managing agent with the apparent and actual
4 authority to bind NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION, and who publicly and
5
privately gave orders to control--and controlled--NITHY ANANDA
6
7
ORGANIZATION'S employees, agents, officers and directors, and whose public and
8
private instructions each of the other Defendants abided by, is Individual Defendant
9
SWAMI.
10
11 28. NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION itself described SWAMI as its "leader."
12
Many of the other Individual Defendants such as SlY A described SWAMI as a
13
14
"God," and their ''God." In Plaintiffs' presence and during events on and off
15
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S
NITHY ANANDA premises,
16
17
ORGANIZATION cloaked SWAMI with all of its authority, not only calling him its
18
"leader" in publications, but publicly abiding by his every wish and whim, and
19
20
referring to him as their "God." Because of the substantial extent and great degree to
21 which SWAMI was allowed to control--and controlled--NITHY ANANDA
22
ORGANIZATION'S details, operations and expenditures, SWAMI and
23
24
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION share a unity of interest and are one and the
25
same.
26
27
29.
For example, on Apri123, 2007, Defendant GOPAL wrote that SWAMI ''wants
28 you to be answerable to him, not anyone else ... " A September 28, 2007
COMPLAINT
IOOOJ453 7. DOC) 13
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION e-mail entitled "Temple website handover"
2
3
addressed "this valuable site which is under DIRECT supervision of Swamiji
4 [SWAMI] himself." (Capitals in original e-mail). SWAMI himself announced in
5
writing to the world that "I, ... Swami, my secretary, and anyone associated with
6
7
Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam, including but not limited to disciples, devotees, and
8
other members of all related organizations in India and abroad promise we "will not
9
harm" a particular individual. Many ashramites ("devotees") who went to stay at
10
II NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S Indian premises had to sign a Declaration
12
that stated: "I fully agree that Paramahamsa Nithyananda [SWAMI] or the authorities
13
14
of Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam can remove me from any position or authority."
15
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION and each of the other Individual Defendants
16
17
knew of, permitted and ratified SWAMI's promise, made on behalf of
18 NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION, agam confi1ming SWAMI's plenary
19
20
ostensible authority to bind NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION by his conduct.
21 30. On information and belief, it is alleged that SWAMI is the equitable owner of
22
the NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION and each of the alter ego entities listed i n ~
23
24
16. There is a unity of interest and ownership between SWAMI and
25
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION such that, in reality, their separateness does not
26
exist. Moreover, the treatment of the actions in question in this complaint as those of
27
28
:ooo3.t537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
l4
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION or SWAMI alone would lead to an inequitable
2
3
result and promote an injustice.
4 31. SWAMI was a managing agent of NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION
5
because he exercised substantial independent authority and judgment in his corporate
6
7
decision making such that SWAMI's decisions ultimately determined
8
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S policy.
9
32.
Even after NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S March 20 I 0 sex scandal,
10
11 SWAMI's level of involvement continued, as reflected by Defendant GOPAL's April
12
I3, 20 I 0 e-mail to an individual named Balaji, which stated he needed "to get a
13
14
comprehensive idea about the Foundations to present to Swamiji."
15
16
17
18
19
SWAMI AND THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WERE
NITHY AN ADA OGANIZA TION'S OSTENSIBLE AGENTS
33. NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION held out SWAMI and the other
Individual Defendants to have--and SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants
20
exercised--ostensible authority to act on NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S
21
22
behalf and NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION is bound by SWAMI's and the
23 other Individual Defendants' acts--regardless of whether or not they held any legal
24
25
title such as officer, director, agent or employee of NITHY ANANDA
26 ORGANIZATION.
27
28
34. On information and belief, it is alleged that SWAMI--along with Defendant
SlY A--created Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION. SWAMI himself
COMPLAINT
1 (
signed Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's original tax returns and filed
2
3
documents with the federal government in 2004 and 2005 which listed SWAMI as
4 Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's President.
5
35. SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants controlled numerous other
6
7
interrelated entities (many listed in ~ 16) as their own personal assets and transferred
8
funds from one entity to another or sold assets of these entities at will, including
9
transferring monies from within NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION to a company
10
11 called Nithyananda Imports and Exports which was created, operated and run by
12
SWAMI's brother. As one way to "cover up" or conceal these impermissible
13
14
transactions which moved large sums of money out of NITHY ANAND A
15
ORGANIZATION, SWAMI and his brother originated, inflated and falsified
16
17
invoices from Defendant TRUST in Bangalore, India.
For example, on or about
18 April 17, 2010, a former contributor named Popatlal Savla obtained a printout of
19
20
invoices totaling $550,386.82 from SWAMI's brother's company (Nithyananda
21 Imports and Exports) statues that he later learned were worth less than $100,000.
22
36. Within the last three years, Plaintiffs learned that this manner was one scheme
23
24
through which SWAMI and the other Defendants conspired to move--and moved--
25
large sums of money out from NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION to SWAMI and
26
27
the other Defendants' surrogates abroad. The Individual Defendants privately knew
28
that NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION was making profits and operating for the
COMPLAINT
benefit of individuals, yet the Individual Defendant agreed to permit, ratified,
2
3
concealed and facilitated that wrongful and fraudulent conduct.
4 37. Beginning in March 20 I 0, Plaintiffs learned that at all times relevant SWAMI
5
and the Individual Defendants controlled and operated NITHY ANAND A
6
7
ORGANIZATION and their interrelated, alter ego entities as their own personal
8
piggybanks or A TM machines. SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants made
9
10
all of the financial decisions on NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S and their
11 interrelated, alter ego entities' behalf.
12
13
14
15
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND CONCEALMENTS ABOUT THE
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION AND ITS
LEADER--SWAMI
38. Publicly and privately to Plaintiffs and their representatives, SWAMI would
16 almost overemphasize he received nothing of value from contributions, had forsaken
17
all material things, and was celibate (commonly referred to as "Brahmacharya" in
18
19
Indian Hindu terminology).
20
39. At various dates between 2005 and 2009, SWAMI and each of the other
21
22
Individual Defendants personally reinforced to each of Plaintiffs and their
23
representatives that SWAMI was a "Brahmachari Sanyasi," or the other Individual
24
25
Defendants stood by when those representations were made in Plaintiffs' presence,
26 thereby endorsing those representations with their silence.
27
28
40.
According to the Individual Defendants' representations to the Plaintiffs and
the general public, SWAMI's renouncement of all material possessions was the basis
{00034537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
p
for his high moral authority and a confirmation SWAMI had attained enlightenment
2
3
and was leading a monastic, celibate life as an '"Enlightened Master."
4 41. At no time prior to March 20 I 0 did SWAMI or any other Individual Defendant
5
do anything to dissuade Plaintiffs from believing those statements to be true. To the
6
7
contrary, the Individual Defendants circulated it as common knowledge, and made it
8
known to persons who attended SWAMI's discourses.
9
42.
From 2005 to 2009, SWAMI's and the other Individual Defendants' written
10
II and spoken representations and NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S public
12
events and activities eschewed sexual and intimate physical contact between
13
14
unmarried persons as a central component ofNITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION'S
15
mission of attaining spiritual peace and harmony.
16
17 43.
Prior to March 20 I 0, the other Individual Defendants each privately ratified
18 SWAMI's sexual misconduct when they became aware of it by creating--and then
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
requiring many ashramites to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements ("NDA 's"). A true
and correct copy of one of the NDAs is attached as Exhibit A. But the Individual
Defendants kept the NDAs secret from Plaintiffs and from other contributors.
44.
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND CONCEALMENTS ABOUT
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION
501 (c)
When requesting contributions from Plaintiffs, Defendants held out each entity
28 of NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION as a nonprofit organization in compliance
:oo03-t537.ooc:
COMPLAINT
ll:'
with the requirements Section 501 (c) and promised to use Plaintiffs' contributions for
2
3
activities in compliance with Section 50 I (c)'s requirements. A true and correct copy
4
of Defendant NITHY ANADA FOUNDATION'S form request for a contribution is
5
attached as Exhibit B.
6
7
45.
Before contributing one cent to NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION
8
Plaintiffs were led to believe--and reasonably believed--that each entity in
9
10
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION did not make profits, operate for the benefit of
II
any individual's personal or private interests, or violate the law or public policy
12
because NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZA TION, through the acts of SWAMI and the
13
14 other Individual Defendants, held itself out to Plaintiffs as American tax-exempt,
15
nonprofit corporations which were operating in compliance with Section 501 (c).
16
17
46.
To be in compliance, the Internal Revenue Service's regulations require,
18 among other things, that the entity:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• ensure that its earnings do not inure to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual;
• not operate for the benefit of private, personal interests such as those
of its leader or anyone else;
• maintain adequate records;
!00034537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
l c,
• not operate for the primary purpose of conducting a trade or business that
2
3
is not related to its exempt purpose, such as a university's operation of a
4
factory; and
5
• not have purposes or activities that are illegal or violate fundamental
6
7
public policy.
8
47.
From 2005-2009, Plaintiffs were led by SWAMI and each of the other
9
10
Individual Defendants to believe--and reasonably believed-that each entity in
II
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION did not make profits, did not operate for the
12
13
benefit of the personal or private interests of its leader or anyone else, was not
14 conducting a trade or business, and was not violating the law or public policy.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
48.
Led to believe by each of the Defendants that each entity in NITHY ANAND A
ORGANIZATION was complying with Section 50l(c)'s requirements for a non-
profit entity, and in justifiable reliance on each of the Defendant's representations
that each entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION stood for the core principles
privately and publicly propagated to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs made contributions to the
entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
49.
Since September 2005, each entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION
concealed that its principal SWAMI was requiring several attendees to sign NDAs in
a pre-meditated effort to indulge its leader SWAMI's sexual misconduct, and then
through those very NDAs tried to suppress that conduct, while at the same time
:oo<l:l-t5.17DOC!
COMPLAINT
2fJ
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
IR
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2R
Defendants were misrepresenting each entity In NITHY ANAND A
ORGANIZATION as a nonprofit entity in compliance with Section 50 I (c) that did
not engage in any such conduct, and misrepresenting that its leader SWAMI would
not engage in any sexual activity.
50.
One of the NDAs was executed on September 3, 2005, long before Plaintiffs
made a single donation. Exh. B. The NDAs specifically obligated signors to keep the
NDAs--and the underlying offending conduct--secret as well. Exh. B, p. 5. ~ ~ 5(b)
and 7). Sometime after March 20 I 0, Plaintiffs were shocked, horrified and dismayed
to learn that the addendum to the NDAs required volunteers' consent to "sexual or
adult oriented material" that it claimed was "associated with the practice of any
Tantric rituals" and also required consent to "other adult oriented material ... " (Exh.
B, P. 8. ~ A2, ,, A3). Paragraph A3 explicitly stated:
"Volunteer understands that the Program may involve the learning and
practice of ancient tantric secrets associated with male and female ecstasy,
including the use of sexual energy for increased intimacy/spiritual
connection, pleasure, harmony, and freedom. Volunteer understands that
these activities ... may involve nudity, access to visual images, graphic
visual depictions, and descriptions of nudity and sexual activity ... verbal
and written descriptions and audio sounds of a sexually oriented and erotic
nature ... "
:onOJ-t537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
21
51. The NDAs alone revealed that Plaintiffs' donations to each entity m
2
3
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION were procured by fraud and deceit because the
4 nature and purpose of the NDAs (i.e., to satisfy SWAMI's sexual gratification by
5
concealing sex and intimate physical contact) was directly contrary to the
6
7
misrepresentations made to Plaintiffs by SWAMI and each of the other Individual
8
Defendants about the purpose of each entity in NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION
9
which lured Plaintiffs into contributing to entities m NITHY ANANDA
10
II ORGANIZATION.
12
52. To transfer funds from Plaintiffs' bank accounts into NITHY ANANDA
13
14
ORGANIZATION, SWAMI's and each of the other Individual Defendants'
15
representations about (and concealment of) the nature and purpose of each entity in
16
17
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and each entity's compliance with Section
18
50l(c) caused electronic wire transfers across state lines to be used and the mail to be
19
used.
20
21 FUNDRAISING FOR THE "MISSION VISION" OF NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION
22
53.
On August I, 2009, Defendant SlY A sent an electronic e-mail communication
23
24
across state lines to potential contributors about NITHY ANAND A
25
ORGANIZATION'S Mission Vision.
26
27
54.
On August 3, 2009, Defendant SlY A sent potential contributors an electronic
28 e-mail across state lines which attached a spreadsheet, indicating the fundraising
COMPLAINT
:<HJ0345J7.DOC:
requirements for NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S Mission Vision to be $45
2
million.
3
4 55. On August 4 and 18, 2009, Defendants SlY A and GOPAL received e-mails
5
and participated in two nationwide telephonic conference calls with potential
6
7
contributors about the Mission Vision Fundraiser Strategy Plan.
8
56.
On August 6, 2009, Defendant SlY A sent potential contributors an electronic
9
10
e-mail communication across state lines asking them to identify other potential
II
contributors. "'[D]onors may be high net worth individuals, but there are also those
12
13
who have been deeply touched by Swamiji and would give disproportionately high
14
donations." See Exhibit C.
15
57.
On August 8, 2009, Defendant SlY A sent an electronic e-mail communication
16
17
across state lines to potential contributors attaching an electronic link to a 150-page
18 report about NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S nature and purpose. See
19
Exhibit D.
20
21 58. On August ll, 2009, Defendants SlY A and GOPA participated in a national
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
telephonic conference call with potential contributors about the Mission Vision
Fundraiser Strategy Plan, including participants from Phoenix, Oklahoma, St. Louis,
Ohio and North Carolina.
:ooo34537.Doc:
COMPLAINT
23
SWAMI's SEX SCANDAL
2
3
59. In early March 2010, NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION'S scheme to
4 defraud contributors was exposed when a local Indian television station broadcasted a
5
videotape of SWAMI in compromising positions with a woman in his personal living
6
7
quarters at NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S premises in India. According to
8
the newspaper articles, SWAMI and the woman were engaging in a sex act. Many
9
10
Indian newspaper articles published in March 20 I 0 exposed similar behavior. The
II
Indian media labeled the event as a scandal because it was widely accepted that
12
SWAMI was supposed to be Brahmachari or celibate according to Defendants' public
13
14
pronouncements.
15
60. Local residents near NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S Indian premises
16
17
stonned the ashram and burned portions of it down because they were so offended by
18
its scandal and its behavior that was diametrically opposite to what Defendants
19
20
preached and represented. SWAMI himself absconded, fleeing hundreds of miles
21 away into the remotest reaches of India, and evaded capture for 53 days, until he was
22
apprehended in the company of Defendant GOP AL, returned under police guard, and
23
24
jailed in the State in India from where he had fled.
25
DEFENDANTS' FRAUD AND DECEIT IS EXPOSED
26
61. Plaintiffs did not learn about Defendants' misrepresentations and concealments
28 until late March 20 I 0 after SWAMI himself personally admitted to Plaintiff DR.
COMPLAINT
{0003453 7 DOC!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHINDE and to others, that (I) the March 20 I 0 videotape aired by public news
media in India accurately depicted SWAMI with a woman engaging in a sex act in
his private quarters at his Indian ashram, (2) SWAMI had sex with more than one
person, in fact many, (3) the NDAs existed going back to 2005, but had been
concealed from Plaintiffs by SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants, (4)
SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants had since 2005 deceived Plaintiffs (and
other contributors) about the nature and purpose of each entity in NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION and each entity's compliance with Section 501 (c), because, m
part, most of the money collected in the United States was sent to SWAMI.
62.
After March 20 I 0, Plaintiffs were shocked, surprised and dismayed to learn
that SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants personally benefited by charging
money and collecting admission fees for ongoing activities sponsored by entities in
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION or its alter ego entities where sexual contact,
physical contact, nudity, sexual ecstasy, and other similar vile disgusting activities
were foreseen and anticipated to be undertaken by entities in NITHY ANAND A
ORGANIZATION and its alter ego entities and SWAMI. These activities violated
fundamental public policy and were hopelessly irreconcilable with the nature and
purpose of each entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION or the tenets
propagated by SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants, and violated Section
50l(c)'s requirements.
:oo03453 7 DOC:
COMPLAINT
2 r,
63. In March and April 2010, a former contributor, Popatlal Savla, confronted
2
3
SWAMI via the telephone with this information of the ownership of land in India in
4 which the entities of NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION or its alter egos operated,
5
and SWAMI admitted the land in India was in his own name, not in the
6
7
NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION'S or any other charitable entity's name. In an
8
attempt to cover up his previous lie, SWAMI told yet another lie, stating that the
9
10
donor of the Indian land refused to give the land to any charitable foundation so
II
SWAMI was forced to accept ownership of it in his own name. Plaintiffs
12
13
subsequently found out that there was no donor of the Indian land. On the contrary,
14
SWAMI purchased the land. Moreover, all of the funds donated to build
15
NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION'S or its alter ego's premises and various other
16
17
projects on the land in India directly benefited only SWAMI, in violation of Section
18
50l(c).
19
20
64. In late 20 l 0 and thereafter, Plaintiffs also learned that--on November 26, 2007-
21 - SWAMI had started two hedge funds (Nithyananda Capital and Nithyananda
22
Investment) as well as an investment company (Nithya Advisors) in Florida,
23
24
ostensibly through SlY A. NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S operation of these
25
two entities was wholly inconsistent with SWAMI's and the other Individual
26
27
Defendants'
representations made to Plaintiffs about NITHY ANANDA
28 ORGANIZATION'S mission, and also separately and independently violated Section
:ooo34537.ooc:
COMPLAINT
2f
50 I (c)'s requirements (i.e., by operating for the primary purpose, of conducting a
2
trade or business that is not related to NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S
3
4 exempt purpose and by allowing earnings to benefit SWAMI and the other Individual
5
Defendants).
6
7
65. In addition, m late 2010 and thereafter, Plaintiffs discovered that
8
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION paid for all of the lodging costs of SWAMI
9
10
and the Individual Defendants when they stayed on the land in India and when they
II
traveled elsewhere, and that Defendant LIFE BLISS had revenues of $2,693,322 in
12
the 2007 tax year, but only $394,929 in expenses.
13
14
66. On July 2, 2012, a federal jury found Defendant NITHY AN ADA
15
FOUNDATION and Individual Defendant GO PAL engaged in fraudulent conduct
16
17
("the earlier federal case"). A copy of the certified redacted verdict is attached as
18
Exhibit E. This conduct constitutes violations of the public policy doctrine as well,
19
20
which is a separate basis for concluding that entities in NITHY ANANDA
21 ORGANIZATION did not operate in compliance with their obligations for tax
22
exemption under the federal tax law and the Individual Defendants misrepresented to
23
24
Plaintiffs that each of these entities was qualified to and operating as a tax exempt
25
organization.
26
67. Plaintiffs also learned through 2012 filings in the earlier federal case that
27
28 entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION are unable to account for over $2
COMPLAINT
:ooo3-tS37 ooc; 27
million in net revenue as shown on financial documents gave to Popatlal Savla in
2
3
April 20 I 0. Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's annual information tax
4 return for 2007 shows total revenue for the year of $2,693,322, but only $20 I ,078
5
devoted to program services. The entities in NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION
6
7
have no records showing how they spent $3.6 million. Defendant NITHY ANAND A
8
FOUNDATION has been hiding its monies (e.g., from its Ananda Galleria sales shop
9
at the Montclair Property) in its instrumentalities such as Defendant NDTCC.
10
11 68. SWAMI admitted in March 20 I 0 to another contributor, Popatlal Savla, that he
12
had $12.5 million in his personal bank accounts in India, most of it was transferred
13
14
from the U.S., and nearly $6.5 million had come from entities in NITHY ANANDA
15
ORGANIZATION and the rest from other entities in the U.S., Singapore, et cetera.
16
17
At the July 2012 trial, witness Kishan Reddy testified SWAMI, NITHY ANAND A
18
ORGANIZATION'S leader, was a signatory of those bank accounts.
19
20
69. In the earlier federal case, there was uncontroverted testimony in the record
21 from Kishan Reddy that approximately $6 million in bank accounts in India under the
22
control of SWAMI m late March 20 I 0 came from NITHY ANAND A
23
24
ORGANIZATION.
25
70.
Because each entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION was not and is
26
27
not acting as a tax-exempt organization or complying with Section 50 I (c), each was
28
required to file annual information returns with the IRS. Yet, since the filing of
COMPLAINT
:ooo3-t537 ooc:
28
Defendant NITHYANANDA FOUNDATION's return for calendar year 2007, no
2
entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION has filed a return or submitted a
3
4 notice for three consecutive years.
5
71.
Each entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION engaged in transactions
6
7
and other activities (such as the transfer of funds among inter-related entities) and
8
hundreds of thousands of dollars in issuance for so called "grants" without supporting
9
10
documentation. Evidence introduced in 2012 in the earlier federal case showed each
II of the entity's in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION financial records were
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
inadequate and, worse, an expert in the previous federal case testified entities m
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION appeared to have two sets of books.
72.
DEFENDANTS STRIP THE ASSETS OF NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION'S ENTITIES
In April 20 I 0, Defendant GO PAL told some of the Plaintiffs and
19
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S local devotees (via an electronic e-mail
20
communication sent across state lines) that the Nithyananda Temple on the Montclair
21
22
Property would be closed to the public beginning on April 17, 20 I 0. Unbeknownst to
23
Plaintiffs, Defendants closed the Nithyananda Temple because they had reached an
24
25
agreement amongst themselves to destroy evidence and strip all of the assets of the
26 entities in NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION and its alter ego entities and
27
28
fraudulently convey those assets to avoid known liabilities (the "Individual
Defendants' New Conspiracy").
:oom-t:i.n.ooc:
COMPLAINT
2C,
73. In 20 II, Plaintiffs discovered that on April 17, 20 I 0 (i.e., the exact date that
2
3
the Defendants locked the public out of the Nithyananda Temple on the Montclair
4
Property) Defendants sent an electronic e-mail communication across state lines,
5
amongst themselves, setting forth the Individual Defendants' agreement to destroy
6
7
evidence and strip NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S entities' (and other alter
8
ego entities') assets in order to avoid paying any of the NITHY ANANDA
9
10
ORGANIZATION'S liabilities owed to Plaintiffs and creditors. A true and correct
11 copy of the April 17, 2010 e-mail is attached as Exhibit F (the "April 17, 2010 e-
12
mail").
13
14
74.
On April 13, 2010, Defendant GO PAL sent an e-mail communication across
15
state lines about the structure and risks of the Individual Defendants' New
16
17
Conspiracy.
18 75. On April 15, 2010, Defendant GO PAL sent an electronic e-mail
19
20
communication across state lines requesting his wife and others to send the plan for
21 the Nithyananda Temple management changes.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
76.
On April 16, 2010, Defendant GO PAL received an electronic e-mail
communication across states lines highlighting the Individual Defendants' scheme to
distribute the assets of the entities of NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION and the
other interrelated alter ego entities. Defendant GOP A L responded that "the
:oo0345HDOC;
COMPLAINT
30
dissolution and distribution plan was very clear and unambiguous" and there was "an
2
3
agreement in principle on the plan."
4 77. The April 17, 2010 e-mail was received across state lines by Defendants
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GOPAL, and SIVA. That e-mail summarized the Individual Defendants' New
Conspiracy as follows:
a. The Individual Defendants would oversee, control and distribute
Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's assets as well as the
assets of fourteen other alter ego entities: Defendants LIFE BLISS and
NDTCC as well as Nithyananda Yoga; Nithyananda Anna; Nithyananda
University; Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam WA; Nithyananda San Jose;
Nithyananda MO; Nithyananda AZ; Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam OK;
Nithyananda TX; Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam OH; Nithyananda NC;
and Nithyandanda NY.
b. The Individual Defendants' New Conspiracy was necessary because
:ooo34537 ooc:
"[t]here have been multiple threats of lawsuits in person, in e-mail and
over the phone multiple times" and "[t]he threat of sexual harassment
lawsuits exist in the US. There are people who have expressed such
concerns of such incidents happening to them. We are getting [to] know
more day by day."
COMPLAINT
31
c. Each of the Individual Defendants was made aware of a complaint filed
2
3
with the California Attorney General "which is bound to haunt the
4 organization."
5
d. The Individual Defendants' New Conspiracy describes the Individual
6
7
Defendants' plan to strip the NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION of all
8
of their assets and form new "non profits."
9
10
e. "Dissolution of the entities was recommended as the cleanest option
II
with the least risk. The best way recommended was to start with a clean
12
slate and it involves the least risk against any lawsuits. Our attorneys
13
14
[have] specifically stated quoting case studies of courts not allowing
15
cases against organizations that have been dissolved."
16
17
f. The Individual Defendants' "Distribution Plan" commencing on page 3
18
and going through page 6 of Exhibit F sets out the Individual
19
Defendants' "Cash Distribution Plan" and "Asset Distribution Plan" for
20
21 NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
22
g. The Individual Defendants' Distribution Plan involves selling assets and
23
24
vehicles and transferring buildings and real Property, "and [to] distribute
25
cash to other nonprofit[s]" confirming their desire to move assets out
26
27
28
C0!\1PLAINT
{0003-l537.DOC;
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
from NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and the other inter-related
entities, so as to make these entities unable to pay out on known
liabilities which the e-mail itself describes in detail.
h. The Individual Defendants agreed to set up a new entity to be run by
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and then transfer ownership of
property to the new entity.
1. The Individual Defendants (individually and collectively) treated each of
the fifteen entities as one "organization" and internally referred to the
collection of these so called non-profits between themselves as "the
organization."
78.
On April 21, 20 l 0, Defendants SlY A and GO PAL received an e-mail which
noted the Individual Defendants' role of doing "preliminary due diligence" on the
plan and bragged that "we have avoided potential legal situations (such as being
asked by Bhata Swami [who is Defendant GOPAL] to refund the donations for some
of the donors) ... " In this e-mail the Individual Defendants repeated the plan to
dissolve the existing entities to "protect Swami, ... and Directors and officers of the
organization from being drawn into unwanted and avoidable litigations."
:oo03-t5:l7£X>C!
COMPLAINT
33
3
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD AND DECEIT
(Against All Defendants!
4 79. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
5
incorporate the same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
6
7
The Defendants' Misrepresentations and/or Concealments
8
80. In March 2007, NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and SWAMI invited
9
10
Plaintiff CARMAN and his wife to a meeting in Montclair, California. During that
II
two-hour long meeting, SWAMI told Plaintiff CARMAN in the presence of
12
13
Defendants GOPAL and SIVA that he was just a village boy, that he wanted nothing
14
for himself, and had forsaken everything material. SWAMI, SIVA and GOPAL each
15
told CARMAN that the entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION were non-
16
17
profit entities in compliance with Section 501 (c). Later in 2007--after Plaintiff
18
CARMAN met the SWAMI again at the Montclair Property, SWAMI repeated these
19
representations.
20
21 81. In early 2006, Plaintiff DR. SHINDE first met SWAMI in California, and in
22
2006 and 2007 met SWAMI, SIVA and GOPAL in Los Angeles and San Bernardino
23
24
Counties, on numerous occasions. Each repeated SWAMI's celibacy, renouncement
25
of all material things, and the non-profit nature in compliance with Section 50 l (c)
26
27
requirements of each of the entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and its
28 alter ego entities.
{0003453 7.00C:
COMPLAINT
34
82. In mid-June 2005, Plaintiff T A YI met SWAMI at a function for physicians in
2
3
Houston, TX. SWAMI told TA YI that he was a Bhramachari Sanyasi who had
4 forsaken all material possessions and stressed the compliance with Section 50 l (c)
5
requirements of all of the entities in NITHY ANADA ORGANIZATION. SWAMI
6
7
also stressed his celibacy, and his renouncement of all material possessions as the
8
basis for his moral authority and as a confirmation he attained enlightenment.
9
10
Defendants GO PAL and SIVA made the same representations to T A YI at that event
II
and at others and said they could vouch for SWAMI because they lived with him, and
12
they confirmed SWAMI was a monastic who owned nothing, wanted nothing, and
13
14
was pure and divine. GO PAL and SIVA stressed to T A YI that all of the entities in
15
NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION were non-profits operating in compliance with
16
17
Section 50 I (c).
18 83. Plaintiff DALAL was a monthly contributor to NITHY ANAND A
19
20
ORGANIZATION. DALAL met Defendants SIVA and GOPAL at various monthly
21 meetings of the monthly contributors in California at the Montclair Property. From
22
2006-2009, Defendants SIVA and GOPAL told DALAL that SWAMI was a
23
24
Bhramacharyi Sanyasi and all of the NITHY AN ADA ORGANIZATION entities
25
were non-profits in compliance with Section 50 l (c). During a 2008, twenty-one day
26
27
mediation retreat in India, SWAMI himself told DALAL at a public event that all he
28
owned was two pairs of clothes, a bar of soap and a toothbrush and that his annual
COMPLAINT
:oo034537 ooc:
cost for clothes was a couple hundred rupees, which is about $4.00, and the annual
2
3
cost for his toiletries was about ten rupees, or about $2.00.
4 84. In 1995, Plaintiff BHAT met SWAMI in California. SWAMI told BHAT that
5
he was a Bhramachari Sanyasi who was celibate, owned nothing, aspired to own
6
7
nothing, and was leading a monastic life, which established SWAMI's high moral
8
authority. In 1995 and in 1996 in California, Defendants SlY A and GOPAL told
9
10
BHA T that SWAMI was "an Enlightened Master" and all of NITHY ANAND A
I I
ORGANIZATION'S entities were nonprofits in compliance with Section 501 (c).
12
In October 2005 in Los Angeles and in December 2005 in Bidadi, India,
13
14
Plaintiff BHUTADA was told by Defendants SIVA, GOPAL and SWAMI that
15
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S entitles were non-profits in compliance with
16
17
Section 50 I (c).
In fact, Exh. B was sent to Ramesh Bhutada by agents of
18 NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION its 501(c)(3) status, and it is in response to
19
20
such solicitations and in reliance of such representation that RAMESH BHUADA
21 and BHUT ADA FAMILY FOUNDATION made donations to NITHY ANAND A
22
ORGANIZATION.
23
24
85. Each time Plaintiffs made a contribution to NITHY ANAND A
25
ORGANIZATION they received a written donation receipt confirming the entity's
26
27
Section 50 I (c) status.
28
COMPLAINT
:oooJ-t537 noc:
.,!:
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S Non Compliance With The IRS
2
Operating Requirements: Violating Private Inurement Doctrine
3
86.
Before Plaintiffs contributed one penny to any entity in NITHY ANAND A
4
5
ORGANIZATION the Individual Defendants each repeatedly misrepresented to
6
Plaintiffs (and other contributors) that NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION did not
7
8
benefit any insiders. To the contrary, each of the Individual Defendants represented
9 that SWAMI (and the other Individual Defendants) had forsaken all material things,
10
wanted nothing, and had nothing. SIVA and GO PAL informed each of the Plaintiffs
II
12
that they themselves had placed all of their own personal assets "at SWAMI's feet"
13
and donated them to NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and its '"Mission." This
14
15
was part of the continuing charade by these Individual Defendants to fool Plaintiffs--
16 and the IRS--into believing the entities of NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION were
17
engaging in exclusively charitable activities. Yet, at the time the Individual
18
19
Defendants made these representations, these Defendants knew they were false.
20
87.
During the trial of the earlier federal case, witness Kishan Reddy testified in
21
22
July 2012 that SWAMI admitted in March 20 I 0 that he had $12.5 million in his
23
personal bank accounts in India, "most of it [was] transferred from the U.S., and
24
25
nearly $6.5 million comes from [Defendant] Nithyananda Foundation and the rest
26 from other entities in the U.S., Singapore, et cetera." In March 20 I 0, SWAMI
27
himself confessed he owned land in India, which is worth $5.5 million.
28
88. Expert testimony in the earlier federal case revealed SWAMI's accounts in
COMPLAINT
!0003453 7. fXK':
India accumulated a balance of over $6.37 million in 702 deposits between April 20,
2
3
2006 and April 5, 20 I 0. There was no basis--consistent with Section 50 I (c) status--
4 for Defendants to approve these transfers. In the previous federal case, under penalty
5
of perjury, Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's CFO, Sandhya Bail
6
7
testified: "what you know for certain is that the Foundation owns no land in India."
8
Individual Defendant GOPAL agreed in his deposition in the earlier federal case.
9
10
SWAMI himself misrepresented to donors that the land in India was donated to
II
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION.
12
89. Plaintiffs in late March 20 I 0 and thereafter discovered--and then, most
13
14
importantly, SWAMI himself confirmed--that since 2004 SWAMI owned large
15
swaths of land in Bidadi, India where the so called Ashram was situated. Defendant
16
17
GOPAL's wife, Jyothi, was on Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION's
18
Board continuously since March 5, 2007 and could not recollect doing anything to
19
find out who owned the land on which NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S
20
21 money was sent for the construction of buildings.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
90. Defendant SIVA's wife, Ragini, a Board member of an entity m
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION in 2006/2007 and its President in 20 I 0/20 II
testified NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION owned no land or infrastructure in
India. Defendant GOPAL agreed. Defendant SIVA's wife Ragini admitted for
2006/2007 and 20 I 0/20 II "there was no project in India owned by Nithyananda
!00034537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
38
Foundation." There was simply no conceivable basis for millions to be sent to India
2
3
by Defendants, for construction projects on SWAMI's land.
4 91. The Individual Defendants themselves benefitted from NITHY ANANDA
5
ORGANIZATION. NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION gave GO PAL and his wife
6
7
an apartment in Bidadi, India. Defendant SlY A diverted a 29.1% interest in Rank by
8
Search LLC ("RBS") for his own personal benefit even though that interest was
9
donated by Suresh Pillai to an entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION. In the
10
II
previous federal case, Defendant SlY A admitted he is claiming an equity ownership
12
in RBS. Defendant GOPAL's wife, Jyothi, never paid for a single residence cost
13
14
since 2007. Defendant SlY A's wife, Ragini, did not pay for her food and lodging
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
from 2005 through January 2012.
All these were paid by entities in
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
The Illegality of NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S Activities and Its Non
Compliance With Public Policy Violates another IRS Operating Test
92. Before Plaintiffs contributed one penny to any entity in NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION, the Defendants consistently misrepresented to Plaintiffs (and
other donors) that SWAMI was penniless and a Brahmachari Sanyasi.
93. At the time Defendants made these misrepresentations, these Defendants knew
they were false because they were using "NDAs" since 2005 to permit and facilitate
SWAMI's secret sexual use of devotees.
COMPLAINT
:ooo3-t537 ooc: 3S
94. Defendant GOPAL testified in the earlier federal case that for "years" NDAs
2
3
were being required to be signed by some people who came to the ashram. Then,
4 GOPAL asserted the Fifth Amendment to block all responses to further questions
5
about the NDAs. Defendant SlY A himself signed an NDA as a volunteer discharging
6
7
SWAMI of "any liability" arising out any sexual activities. Then, after SWAMI's
8
sex scandal was exposed, Defendants SIVA, SWAMI and GOPAL all acted to
9
10
conceal the NDAs. When confronted in late March 2010 with SWAMI's sexual
11 transgressions, Defendant SlY A did not express surprise, but instead replied "I don't
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
care about Swami's sexual liaisons, if it somehow helps Swami."
95. Defendants' use of the NDAs is a blatant example of a violation of Section
50 I (c) because the NDAs are contrary to public policy as the NDAs attempted,
contractually, to conceal in fact suppress the illegal activity of entities within
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and illegal activity and/or conduct that violated
public policy. NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S agent, Ma Nithya
Sadhananda, admitted during the earlier federal trial that she signed the September
2005 NDA, which is attached as Exhibit A.
96. At the earlier federal trial, NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S agent
explained how Defendants secured volunteers' "consent" to these NDAs by telling
devotees it was to protect its "intellectual property." The NDAs alone reveal that
Plaintiffs' donations commencing in 2005 were procured by fraud and deceit because
:<Hl034'i_17.DOC:
COMPLAINT
41j
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the nature and purpose of the NDAs (i.e., to satisfy SWAMI's sexual gratification by
concealing sex and intimate physical contact) is directly contrary to the
misrepresentations made to Plaintiffs and the world at large by the Defendants about
each entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION which directly lured Plaintiffs
into contributing to entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S & The Individual Defendants' Non-
Compliance with another IRS Operating Test: The Attribution Rules
10
97. The Individual Defendants executed SWAMI's instructions and most
II
12
significantly ran not just the entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION but all
13 the other alter ego entities in NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION. The Individual
14
Defendants knew each entity within NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION was not
15
16
attributing revenues of related instrumentalities because the Individual Defendants
17
ran and operated SWAMI's entire operation. Defendant GOPAL was the "main
18
19
administrator of everything." Between 2005 and 2008, each of the Defendants told
20
Plaintiffs that NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION "is one organization of many
21
entities such as Nithyananda Foundation, Life Bliss Foundation, NDTCC" and others.
22
23
Since 2005, Plaintiffs observed the Individual Defendants ran the operation of all of
24
these entities. In early 2006, Defendants GOPAL and SIVA telephoned a former
25
devotee, Prakash Morolia, to have him serve as the Coordinator in Houston for
26
27
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION. As the Coordinator m Houston for
28
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION, Mr. Morolia observed no differentiation
!00034537 I)OC:
COMPLAINT
-11
between Defendants LIFE BLISS, NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION, or any other
2
3
Nithyananda entity. Defendant SlY A and his wife told donors to make checks
4 payable to one entity in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION even though they
5
knew the donations were intended by the donors for another entity m
6
7
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
8
98.
Several witnesses testified in June and July 2012 during the earlier federal trial
9
that they intended to give their donation to Defendant NITHY ANANDA
10
11 FOUNDATION but were told to write their checks to Defendant LIFE BLISS or
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
some other entity in Swami's organization such as Defendant TRUST. Former
devotee, Suresh Pillai, was told that Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION
and Defendant LIFE BLISS "are one and the same." Defendants never observed any
separateness internally at the Ashram or in their dealings with SWAMI between the
entities in NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION or the interrelated alter ego entities.
Defendants considered all of the entities as one, and violated the IRS' rules by not
attributing the revenues of all of these other entities to the correct entity in
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
99.
Separately, SWAMI said innumerable times "every penny I collect here in the
U.S. stays here. We don't take it to India." Yet, Defendant SIVA's wife, Jyothi, was a
Defendant NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION board member when $225,000 was
sent to India to build on land owned by SWAMI.
!00034537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
42
I 00. Then, after SWAMI's sex scandal went viral in March 20 I 0, Defendants
2
3
attempted to strip NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION of all of its assets Defendant
4 GOPAL and his wife, Jyothi, admitted he received this e-mail which was sent to
5
Defendant SlY A as well. This document alone shows Defendants violated IRS
6
7
attribution rules. Defendants SlY A and GO PAL confirmed they knew all these assets
8
were being run by SWAMI, because in March 2010 Defendants SIVA and GOPAL
9
10
and SWAMI himself called Kishen Reddy in India to help unfreeze the $12 million
II
plus in assets that the Indian Government froze while Defendants GOPAL and
12
SWAMI were together absconding from the law.
13
14
l 0 l. The IRS' attribution rules mandated including assets and revenues of all related
15
16
entities, yet, Defendant SlY A created two for profit entities Nithyananda Investments
17
in 2008 and Nithyananda Investments LLC to further circumvent the IRS attribution
18
19
rules. NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S financial records, show that
2o Defendants NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION, LIFE BLISS, NDTCC and all of the
21
other Nithyananda interrelated entities across the U.S. were all operated as one
23 organization, with assets being commingled, and the Defendants controlled them all.
24
25
26
27
28
l 02. The Individual Defendants controlled each entity within NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION by their ( l) joint day-to-day management by the same persons
(Sandhya Bail was the CFO of Defendants NITHY ANAND A FOUNDATION and
:ooo34537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
4 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LIFE BLISS at the same time Defendant SlY A was on Defendant NITHY ANDA
FOUNDATION's Board from 2004 to November 2007, in 2006 was on Defendant
LIFE BLISS' Board and its President through February 2007, in June 2007 was on
Defendant NDTCC's Board in 2008 was a Member of Nithyananda Investments and
Nithyananda Investments LLC and was the President of Defendant NDTCC in 20 II;
SlY A's wife, Ragini was Defendant Nithyananda Foundation's Director in 2006-07
and 20 I 0-11, a Director of Defendant Life Bliss Foundation from 2007 to February
20 II and in 20 II was the President of both Defendants Nithyananda Foundation and
Life Bliss Foundation and Defendant GOPAL and his wife, Joythi, were both co-
Directors of Defendant Life Bliss Foundation, (2) interlocking boards of directors, (3)
operating from the same location (Defendant NDTCC was doing business at the same
location as Defendant Nithyananda Foundation. Nithyananda Yoga & Meditation
University had its office there too and Defendant Life Bliss Foundation's office was
at the same location as well), (4) using the same telephone number, (5) having the
same person serve as CFO of several of these entities, (Bail was the CFO of
Defendants Nithyananda Foundation, Life Bliss Foundation and NDTCC at the same
time, her own rent was paid by Defendant NDTCC and at the same time she is also a
Director of Defendant NDTCC, Defendant Life Bliss Foundation, Nithyananda Yoga
& Meditation University, and Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of Phoenix and of St.
Louis and of New York, and a Trustee of Nithyananda Meditation Academy, ( 6)
;OOOH5_17 DOC;
COMPLAINT
44
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
I2
I3
I4
I5
I6
I7
I8
I9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
documents such as insurance policies state that one entity was the "dba" of another
and then, Defendant NDTCC claimed sole ownership of the Montclair Property even
though only Defendant Nithyananda Foundation owned it, (7) freely moving funds
between these instrumentalities [Defendant Nithyananda Foundation received
$300,000 and $250,000 from Defendant Life Bliss Foundation and Defendant
NDTCC in June 20 I 0 when Defendant SlY A was on Defendant NDTCC's Board],
(8) joint fundraising (see Exh. C & D), (9) joint donor lists (id. ), and (I 0) booking
assets and revenues of Defendant Nithyananda Foundation projects such as "Ananda
Galleria" to other instrumentalities such as Defendant NDTCC and/or Defendant Life
Bliss Foundation.
103. There is only one Ananda Galleria. Defendant GOPAL's wife, Jyothi, who has
been on Defendant Nithyananda Foundation's Board since March 5, 2007 testified in
the earlier federal trial that Ananda Galleria "was an internal department name in
Nithyananda Foundation." Jyothi was asked during her deposition in the earlier
federal case, should money from the activities of Ananda Galleria "have been booked
as revenue for [Defendant] Nithyananda Foundation." She replied "Yes." But an
expert in the earlier federal case opined that just the opposite occurred: over $700,000
of Ananda Galleria revenues are posted not to Defendant Nithyananda Foundation,
but to Defendant NDTCC. In this way, NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION
laundered large sums of money out through instrumentalities.
:o1xu-ts37 ooc;
COMPLAINT
45
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
I 04. The Individual Defendants knew, by virtue of being incorporators,
Directors, and controllers of all these entities that Defendant Nithyananda Foundation
was required to but did not attribute the revenues of its instrumentalities like
Defendant NDTCC and Defendant Life Bliss Foundation. Rather, these defendants
abused these rules and deliberately caused one or more entities in NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION to siphon its assets to other entities in violation of IRS attribution
rules, so that SWAMI could get the money through these other entities.
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S Non-Compliance with the Private
Benefit Doctrine Violates another IRS Operating Test
I 05. The Individual Defendants also knew that entities in NITHY ANANDA
15 ORGANIZATION were benefitting "disinterested persons." For example, Defendant
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GOPAL knew that an entity in NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION had given
apartments to his mother-in-law, and other close devotees in India. Overpayments by
one of the entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION for statues to SWAMI's
brother, to whose company large sums were transferred, was another way
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION benefitted third parties.
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION Failed to Maintain Adequate Records,
Which is a Violation of another IRS Operational Test
I 06. In 2012, Pia inti ffs learned that Defendants engaged in transactions and other
activities (such as the transfer of funds among related entities and instrumentalities)
:oooJ4537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
46
and issued hundreds of thousands of dollars in so called "grants" without any
2
3
supporting documentation. In 2012, Pia inti ffs learned from financial records given to
4 a former devotee m April 2010 about entities m NITHY ANAND A
5
ORGANIZATION do not show how Defendant Nithyananda Foundation's
6
7
$3,030,339.26 cumulative surplus was spent, do not explain the transfer of over $2
8
million sent to India in the form of so called "grants," and do not account for over $2
9
10
million in net revenue shown on financial documents of entities within
11 NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
107. Worse, the entities in NITHYANANDA ORGANIZATION "cooked its
books" to cover up its inadequate record keeping, and in September 2011 an entity in
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION changed its business records to engineer a $4.4
million swing (from a profit to a loss) in Defendant Nithyananda Foundation's
financial records.
I 08.
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S False Organization as a
Non-Profit Organization
Individual Defendants SlY A and SWAMI were the incorporators of
23 NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION. From the beginning, the IRS told the
24
25
26
27
28
NITHY ANANDA FOUNDATION it was concerned about the "Foundation's basis
used in determining the sales price" of the products, and on September 24, 2004
asked NITHY ANAND A FOUNDATION to "state how your publishing activities are
distinguishable from those of a for-profit enterprise". Defendant SlY A wrote back:
:ooo3453 7.DOC:
COMPLAINT
·1 ·;
"These books are sold at cost, which is inclusive of printing and shipping costs ....
2
3
This is how our publishing activities differ from a for profit organization." Yet,
4
between 2005-20 I 0 entities in NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION--under the
5
control of the Individual Defendants--charged huge sums for programs such as "Atma
6
7
Spurana." Defendant Nithyananda Foundation's annual information tax return for
8
2007, shows total revenue for the year of $2,693,322 but only $20 I ,078 devoted to
9
10
program services. Defendant Nithyananda Foundation's cumulative P&L shows over
II
$5,993,506.87 in "Total Income." Defendants have no records to show what they
12
13
charged was remotely justified by the cost to produce these programs.
14 I 09. At the time the Individual Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs about
15
the cost of NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S programs they knew it was
16
17
supposed to be charging for those services at cost. They knew too that SWAMI's
18
approach was mixing profit and non-profit activities in managing all of the various
19
20
entities in his Mission, including Defendants Life Bliss Foundation and Nithyananda
21 Foundation.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II 0.
Defendant GOPAL's wife, Jyothi, sold statutes for profit from the Ananda
Galleria at the Montclair Property, but falsely represented to Plaintiff DALAL they
were being sold at cost.
Prakash Moralia, the Houston coordinator of
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION noticed SWAMI's organization was selling
statues he imported "at very inflated prices" and told Defendant SlY A that
:on034537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
<1f.'
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION "is being run like a Mafia." The Houston
2
3
Coordinator told Defendant SIVA "the pressure to bring in money is too intense."
4 Ill. Each of these practices was directly contrary to what NITHY ANANDA
5
ORGANIZATION represented to the Plaintiffs in order to get their contributions and
6
7
to the IRS in order to be organized as a non-profit. Defendants concealed this
8
information from Plaintiffs, in order to cause them to donate to entities in
9
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
10
II
Defendants' Duty To Speak
12
112. Because the Individual Defendants were acting as NITHY ANANDA
13
14
ORGANIZATION'S ostensible agents, knew the truth all along, and knew it was not
15
what was being represented to donors like Plaintiffs, Defendants each had an
16
17
independent duty to inform Plaintiffs that ( 1) from the beginning and all along
18
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S intent was to make profits, (2) SWAMI, the
19
20
other Individual Defendants, and other insiders were personally benefiting from
21 contributions made to entities within NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION, (3)
22
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION was engaging in illegal activity and/or not
23
24
complying with public policy, (4) Defendant Nithyananda Foundation was not acting
25
as a separate legal entity but was acting through and with several other
26
27
instrumentalities such as Defendant NDTCC and Defendant LIFE BLISS
28 FOUNDATION, and not declaring their revenues under the IRS' attribution rules, (5)
:ooo3-t5.17.DOC:
COMPLAINT
49
the entities within NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION were servmg a private
2
3
interest, (6) the entities m NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION were benefitting
4 disinterested persons, and (7) the entities within NITHY ANAND A
5
ORGANIZATION had no accounting of the millions it solicited and collected, most
6
7
of which it shoveled to SWAMI in India ostensibly for "construction" projects on the
8
ashram's land, even though the Defendants knew NITHY ANAND A
9
10
ORGANIZATION had no land and no infrastructure in India, and only SWAMI
II
owned that land.
12
Plaintiffs' Justifiable/Detrimental Reliance and Damages
13
14
113. Plaintiffs' reliance was reasonable in light of the fact that Defendants knew but
15
concealed NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION was not complying with Section
16
17
50l(c) because of any of the following reasons: (I) NDAs, being signed since 2005,
18 which revealed the true purpose and activities of the entities within
19
20
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and its principal, SWAMI, which were and are
21 against public policy and diametrically opposite to Defendants' representations; (2)
22
falsely misrepresenting NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S true purpose, (3) the
23
24
entities within NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION were making huge payments
25
which personally benefited SWAMI, and separately benefitted each of Individual
26
27
Defendants; (4) private persons were receiving private benefits from the entities
28
within NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION, and the entities in NITHY ANAND A
COMPLAINT
:ooo3-t5J7_ooc:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORGANIZATION were servmg a private interest; (5) SWAMI and the other
Individual
Defendants were operating the entities m NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION and several other instrumentalities, all as one entity, and not
attributing their revenues, and actually sought profits and siphoned out assets; (6)
SWAMI was not a Bharamacharya Sanysasi who had renounced material possessions
and sexual pleasures, but instead owned property, vast cash assets, and had sexual
relations with many, and (7) each entity within NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION
had inadequate accounting records to explain how it spent the millions donated to it.
1 14. In justifiable reliance on Defendants' misrepresentations, concealment and
aforementioned conduct, Plaintiffs made contributions to further NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION'S mission. Specifically, Plaintiffs contributed the following:
Ramesh Bhutada $348,102
Siva Tayi $110,00 l
Dr. Manohar Shinde $150,000
Dr. Bala Bhat $100,002
Dr. Neil Carman $65,000
Hiten Dalal $19,990
115. Plaintiffs had no reason to anticipate that NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION'S leaders and ostensible agents would lie and intentionally
misrepresent and conceal material facts. Had Plaintiffs known the true facts on any
:ooOJ-t53 7 DOC:
COMPLAINT
51
of these topics--each entity tn NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION was making
2
3
profits from which SWAMI and the other Individual Defendants personally
4 benefitted, or SWAMI's sexual misconduct, or each entity in NITHY ANANDA
5
ORGANIZATION'S failure to comply with its own principles and central tenents, or
6
7
the NDAs, or that NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S propagated mission under
8
Section 50 I (c) was nothing but a cruel hoax to scam money from Plaintiffs and other
9
contributors--if Plaintiffs had known any of these things, Plaintiffs would have never
10
II made any payments to NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION or associated
12
themselves with it or its leaders or its ostensible agents the Individual Defendants in
13
14
any fashion whatsoever.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
116.
Plaintiffs did not learn about these misrepresentations and concealments until
mid to late March 20 I 0 at the earliest when SWAMI himself personally admitted to
Plaintiff DR. SHINDE and to others, that (I) the videotape accurately depicted
SWAMI with a woman engaging in a sex act in his private quarters at his Indian
ashram, (2) SWAMI had in fact had sex with more than one woman, (3) the NDAs
existed going back to 2005, but had been concealed from Plaintiffs by SWAMI and
the other Individual Defendants, (4) the Individual Defendants deceived Plaintiffs
(and other contributors) about the nature and purpose, and compliance with Section
50 l (c) of each entity within NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
!00034537 ooc:
COMPLAINT
52
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
117. In doing the acts alleged, NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION and each of
the Individual Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and in the conscious
disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs, and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. Absent punitive
damages, NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and the Individual Defendants will
have no disincentive to engage in this oppressive, fraudulent and malicious conduct
a gam.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
fAgainst All Individual Defendants and DOES l-301
118. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporate the same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
119. At various times and places, each of the Individual Defendants had knowledge
of--and agreed to--defraud Plaintiffs by providing them with false information (and
concealing material facts) about the true nature and purpose of NITHY ANAND A
ORGANIZATION, the nature of NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S activities
and how Plaintiffs' money would be utilized to benefit NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION, thereby inducing Plaintiffs to contribute large sums of money
based on that dishonest information.
120. The Individual Defendants' fraud, deceit and negligent misrepresentations led
28 Plaintiffs to believe, among other things, that (l) NITHY ANAND A
COMPLAINT
:0003453 7.DOC:
ORGANIZATION was not making any profits or operating for the benefit of any
2
3
individual, and (2) NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and its leader (SWAMI)
4
stood for the values and principles Defendants had publicly and privately propagated.
5
As a result, Plaintiffs contributed to NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION.
6
7
121. From 2005 to 2009, the Individual Defendants accepted contributions from
8
Plaintiffs even though these Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were making these
9
10
contributions based on the Individual Defendants' representations that each entity in
II
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION was not making any profits or operating for the
12
benefit of any individual and that each entity m NITHY ANANDA
13
14 ORGANIZATION and its leader (SWAMI) stood for the values and principles
15
defendants had publicly and privately propagated and even though these Defendants
16
17
knew (and intentionally concealed from plaintiffs) (l) each entity m
18 NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION was making profits from which the Individual
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants personally profited (2) SWAMI was engaging inappropriate sexual
conduct and (3) the NDAs concealed NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S vile
activities.
122. As a result of the Individual Defendants' conspiracy to defraud, Plaintiffs were
damaged in an amount to be established at trial, but not less than amounts they
contributed, plus I 0% interest from the date Plaintiffs' payments were made.
!00034537 [)()(':
COMPLAINT
~ 4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
123. In doing the acts alleged, the Individual Defendants acted with oppression,
fraud, malice, and in the conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and therefore
Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time
of trial.
Absent punitive damages, the Individual Defendants will have no
disincentive from continuing to engage in their oppressive, fraudulent and malicious
conduct.
124.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RICO
Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise
through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity:
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c)
(Against all Individual Defendants and DOES 1-30)
Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporate the same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
125.
The third and fourth causes of action are civil actions for RICO remedies
18 authorized by 18 U .S.C. 1961 et seq.; for declaratory and injunctive relief; for actual,
19
20
consequential and exemplary damages; and for all other relief which this Court deems
21 just and proper under all circumstances which have occasioned these causes of
22
action. See 18 U.S.C. ** 1964(a) and (c) ("Civil RICO").
23
24
126. Pursuant to 84 Stat. 94 7, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO laws itemized
25
below are to be liberally construed by this Court even though a liberal construction
26
27
rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code.
28
COMPLAINT
{00034537.DOC: ss
127. Section 1962 of Title 18 of the United States Code, The Racketeer Influenced
2
3
and Corrupt Organizations Act, (RICO) prohibits engaging in a pattern of
4 racketeering activity.
5
128. Under 18 U.S.C. section 1961 (I )(B), "racketeering activity" expressly
6
7
includes any act which is indictable under 18 U .S.C. sections 1341 (mail fraud), 1343
8
(wire fraud) and 1344(2) (bank fraud).
9
10
129. Specifically, it is indictable for anyone to use:
11 (I) the mails or wires to advance or conceal a scheme to defraud under 18
12
U.S.C., sections 1341, 1343; or
13
14 (2) a scheme to defraud that enables the perpetrator to obtain any funds
15
under the custody or control of a bank under 18 U.S.C. section 1344(2).
16
17
130. The primary cause of the fifth and sixth causes of action is a widespread
18
criminal enterprise where the RICO Defendants (i.e., the Individual Defendants and
19
20
DOES 1-30) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across State lines, and a
21 conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity, involving multiple RICO predicate acts
22
during the past ten (I 0) calendar years.
23
24
131. The predicate acts cluster around the RICO Defendants' use of (I) the mails
25
and wires to advance and conceal their scheme to defraud Plaintiffs (and other
26
27
contributors) into making contributions to entities In NITHY ANANDA
28
COMPLAINT
;ooOJ-l5J7 ooc:
ORGANIZATION and (2) a scheme to defraud that enables the perpetrators to obtain
2
3
funds under the custody or control of banks and other financial institutions.
4
132. Since 2005, the RICO Defendants associated together and used their positions
5
within various alter ego entities to use (1) the mails (interstate or intrastate) and wires
6
7
(e.g., e-mail, Internet chat, telephone, wire transfer, etc.) to advance and conceal their
8
scheme to defraud Plaintiffs--and many others--out of millions of dollars by
9
10
providing false information (and concealing material facts) about the nature and
II
quality of NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S and compliance with Section
12
50 I (c) requirements, and how contributors' money would be utilized to benefit
13
14
entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION, thereby inducing Plaintiffs--and
15
other contributors--to contribute large sums of money based on that dishonest
16
17
information and (2) a scheme to defraud that enables the perpetrators to obtain funds
18
under the custody or control of a financial institution (e.g., a bank).
19
20
133. Specifically,
21 (a) SWAMI used his position as the Leader and/or Manager and/or
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
employee of the entities in NITHY ANADA ORGANIZATION and all
of the inter-related entities identified in Paragraph __
(b) Defendant SlY A used his positions as an employee and/or
:oom453 7 ooc:
Manager of Nithyananda Governing Body, Anaada Yoga, Nithyananda
Dhyanapeetam OK and Nithyananda Investments;
COMPLAINT
L ~
~ ' :
(c) Defendant GOPAL used his position as an employee and/or Manager of
2
3
Nithyananda University, Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam WA,
4
Nithyananda TX, NTHLEAP and Nithyananda Research.
5
134. At various times and places, the RICO Defendants conducted and/or
6
7
participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said RICO
8
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
9
10
1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(c).
II
135. During the ten (I 0) calendar years preceding the date of the filing of this
12
Complaint, the RICO Defendants cooperated jointly and severally in the commission
13
14
of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the RICO laws at
15
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 (5), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)
16
17
(Prohibited activities).
18
136. The RICO Defendants committed two (2) or more of the offenses itemized
19
above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
continuity, i.e. a continuing, specific threat of their respective racketeering activities,
also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962( c).
137. The RICO Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343 by using the
mails and wires to advance, conceal and further their scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and
other contributors into making payments to NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION as
follows.
{00034537.DOC;
COMPLAINT
S8
(a) On September 22, 2004, RICO Defendant SlY A used interstate mail to
2
3
hold out NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION' "activities and message
4 of love, peace, bliss and harmony through worship and meditation;"
5
(b) On April 28, 2007, the RICO Defendants utilized electronic
6
7
communications over state lines--via Yahoo Messenger--to participate in
8
a chat meeting with potential volunteers and contributors across the
9
10
United States and India about fundraising for NITHY ANADA
II
ORGANIZATION;
12
(c) On August l, 2009, RICO Defendant SlY A sent an electronic e-mail
13
14 communication across state lines to Plaintiffs and other potential
15
contributors about fundraising for NITHY ANAND A
16
17
ORGANIZATION'S Mission Vision, urgmg them to "visit
18
Dhyanapeetam website where you can review the miSSIOn viSion
19
brochure;"
20
21 (d) Each of the RICO Defendants' representations about
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
: 0 0 0 3 4 ~ 3 7 DOC:
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S nature and purpose caused (at
least twenty (20) electronic wire transfers across state lines to be used to
transfer funds from Plaintiffs' bank accounts into bank accounts of
entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION as identified in the
following Paragraph;
COMPLAINT
5 ~
(e) On August 3, 2009, RICO Defendant SIVA sent Plaintiffs and other
2
3
potential contributors an electronic e-mail across state lines which
4 attached a spreadsheet, indicating the fundraising requirements for
5
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION'S Mission Vision was $45
6
7
million;
8
(f) On August 4, II and 18, 2009, each of the RICO Defendants
9
10
participated in a nationwide and international telephonic conference call
II
about the Mission Vision Fundraiser Strategy Plan;
12
(g) On August 6, 2009, RICO Defendant SIVA sent Plaintiffs and other
13
14 potential contributors an electronic e-mail communication across state
15
lines asking them to identify other potential contributors (Exh. C);
16
17
(h) On August 8, 2009, RICO Defendant SIVA sent an electronic e-mail
18
communication across state lines to Plaintiffs and other potential
19
20
contributors, attaching an electronic link to a 150-page report about
21 NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S nature and purpose (see Exh.
22
D);
23
24
(i) On April 13, 20 l 0, RICO Defendant GO PAL sent an e-mail
25
communication across state lines to the other RICO Defendants about
26
27
the structure, directors and risks of the Individual Defendants' New
28
Conspiracy;
COMPLAINT
;<Hl034537 DOC:
(j) On April 15, 20 I 0, RICO Defendant GO PAL sent an electronic e-mail
2
3
communication across state lines to personnel running entities in
4
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION requesting them to send all of the
5
other RICO Defendants the plan for the Nithyananda Temple
6
7
management changes;
8
(k) On April 16, 20 I 0, Defendant GO PAL received an electronic e-mail
9
10
communication across state lines highlighting the RICO Defendants
II
scheme to strip and re-distribute the assets of NITHY ANAND A
12
ORGANIZATION and other alter ego entities;
13
14
(I)
On information and b e l i e f ~ it is alleged that m April 20 I 0 RICO
15
Defendant GOPAL (via an interstate wire communication) updated
16
17
"'other people in India such as Ayya and Dayamayi," about the
18
Individual Defendants' New Conspiracy;
19
20
(m) On April 17, 20 I 0, all of the Individual Defendants sent and/or received
21 an electronic e-mail communication across state lines (see Exh. F),
22
setting forth the RICO Defendants' agreement to destroy evidence and
23
24
strip the assets of the entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION
25
and other alter ego entities in order to avoid paying any
26
27
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION'S liabilities;
28
COMPLAINT
{00034 53 7. DOC!
(n) The April 17, 20 I 0 e-mail was sent across state lines twice and received
2
3
twice by RICO Defendants SIVA and GOPAL
4 ( o) On September 17, 20 I 0, an e-mail was sent across state lines to RICO
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant SIVA about reviewing the analysis "'for different funding
options."
(p) From December 2007 through February 2009, RICO Defendant SWAMI
controlled the entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and the
inter-related entities in the U.S. from India utilizing international wires
many more than two times. After SWAMI's sex scandal broke on in
March 20 I 0, RICO Defendants SWAMI and GO PAL used internal
wires to call former devotees in the United States, such as Popatlal
Savla, to further their scheme to defraud by promising to return
contributions with no intention of doing so to induce former devotees to
forego filing lawsuits against them.
138. The RICO Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. sections 1344(2) by using a scheme
to defraud that resulted in Plaintiffs (and other victims) authorizing financial
institutions to release funds to entities within NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION
as follows (but not limited to):
t<HHl34537 DOC:
(a) On October 21, 2007 PlaintiffTA YI (on behalf of his wife)
authorized Chase Bank to release $10,00 1.00;
COMPLAINT
62
(b) On May 19,2009, PlaintiffTAYI authorized Chase Bank to
2
3
release $1 00,000;
4 (c) On October II, 2007, Plaintiff DR. SHINDE authorized
5
Countrywide Home Loans to release $50,000;
6
7
(d) On December 15, 2009, Plaintiff DR. SHINDE authorized a
financial institution to release $16,670;
9
10
(e) On May 19, 2008, Plaintiff DALAL authorized Parsons Federal
II
Credit Union to release $19,900;
12
(f) In September 2005, Plaintiff BHUTADA authorized a financial
13
14
institution to release $1 0,000;
15
(g) In October 2005, Plaintiff BHUT ADA authorized a financial
16
17
institution to release $5,000;
18
(h) In December 2005, Plaintiff BHUT ADA authorized a financial
19
20
institution to release $1 0,000;
21 (i)
On June I, 2007, Plaintiff BHUTADA authorized a financial
institution to release $6, I 00;
23
24
(j)
On October 14, 2007, Plaintiff BHUT ADA authorized a financial
25
institution to release 250,000;
2.6
27
(k) On January 23, 2008, Plaintiff BHUT ADA authorized a financial
2.8
institution to release $67,00 I;
COMPLAINT
:oo03453 7.DOC: 63
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(I) Beginning in 2007, Plaintiff CARMAN authorized a financial
institution to release $1008 for twenty-four consecutive months;
(m) On March 30, 2007, PlaintitT CARMAN authorized Wells Fargo
Bank to release $5,000;
(n) On May 22, 2007, Plaintiff CARMAN authorized Wells Fargo
Bank to release $5,000;
(o) On June 15, 2007, Plaintiff CARMAN authorized Wells Fargo
Bank to release $5,000;
(p) On July I, 2007, Plaintiff CARMAN authorized Wells Fargo
Bank to release $5,000;
(q) On May 4, 2009, Plaintiff CARMAN authorized Wells Fargo
Bank to release $3,000;
(r) On May 22, 2009, Plaintiff CARMAN authorized Wells Fargo
Bank to release $3,000;
(s) On November l, 2007, DR. BHAT authorized a financial
institution to release $50,00 I;
(t) On January 3, 2007, DR. BHA T authorized a financial institution
to release $50,00 I.
139. The RICO Defendants engaged m a pattern of activity, posmg a threat of
continued activity, because their actions were part of a pattern of similar acts, which
:ooo3-t537 Doc:
COMPLAINT
E4
were committed against contributors. Given the nature of the enterprise, i.e., use of
2
3
the mails and wires to advance, conceal and further a scheme to defraud individuals
4
into authorizing financial institutions to release funds to entities in NITHY ANANDA
5
ORGANIZATION, the RICO offenses will likely repeat into the future.
6
7
140. The RICO Defendants' misconduct was not an isolated incident because it
8
covers a span of years and these Defendants engaged in a long-term, on-going
9
10
scheme to defraud individuals into making contributions to entities
m
11 NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION and therefore acted with a common purpose
12
13
and had sufficient organization and continuity to constitute an enterprise under
14
RICO.
15
141. The RICO Defendants· conduct constitutes a "pattern of racketeering activity"
16
17
under 18 U.S.C., section 1961 (5) due to these Defendants continuous and ongoing
18
use of the mails and wires to advance, conceal and further their scheme to defraud
19
20
contributors into authorizing banks to release funds to entities in NITHY ANANDA
21 ORGANIZATION and therefore manifested continuity and relatedness involving
22
more than two acts in violation of 18 U.S.C., sections 1341, 1343 and 1344(2).
23
24
142. PlaintitTs have injury in fact arising from the RICO Defendants' racketeering
25
activity because Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the predicate acts (i.e., use of the
26
27
mail and wires to defraud them into authorizing financial institutions to release funds
28
to entities in NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION) and therefore the damages
COMPLAINT
:oo03-t537.ooc:
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintifts suffered were proximately caused by these Defendants' racketeering
activity.
143. Plaintiffs' loss of money was an injury to "'Property" within the meaning of
RICO because the asserted RICO violations were the legal, and proximate cause of
Plaintiffs' injuries, as well as the logical, and but for, cause.
144. Plaintiffs sustained a cognizable and quantifiable InJury to Property.
Specifically, Plaintiffs lost the money they contributed to NITHY ANAND A
ORGANIZATION, plus 10°/o interest since the dates of their payments.
145. The RICO Defendants should be required to account for all gains, profits, and
advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1962( c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable state and federal laws.
146. Judgment should be entered for Plaintifts and against the RICO Defendants for
Plaintiffs' actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all
violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), according to the best available proof.
147. The RICO Defendants should pay to Plaintiffs treble damages for all damages
they sustained as a result of the RICO Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. l962(c),
according to the best available proof.
148. The RICO Defendants should pay to Plaintiffs their costs of the lawsuit
incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all judicial and
non-judicial enforcement and all reasonable counsel's fees.
:oo03-1537.DOC:
COMPLAINT
66
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
149. All damages caused by the RICO Defendants, and all gams, profits, and
advantages derived by them, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1962(c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable state and federal law(s),
should be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Conspiracy to Engage in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity:
18 u.s.c. §§ 1961(5), 1962(d)
!Against All Individual Defendants and DOES 1-30)
150. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporate the same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
151. At various times and places, each of the Individual Defendants ("the RICO
Conspiracy Defendants") conspired to conduct and participate in a RICO enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 ( 4 ), (5),
(9), and 1962(d). The purpose of the conspiracy was to facilitate commission of a
crime (the use of the mails and wires to defraud contributors into authorizing
financial institutions to release funds to entities within NITHY ANAND A
ORGANIZATION in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1341, 1343 and 1344(2).
152. During the ten (I 0) calendar years preceding February 28, 2013, the RICO
Conspiracy Defendants cooperated jointly and severally in the commission of two (2)
or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961 (5), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962( d) (Prohibited
activities).
(OOOJ4537.DOC)
COMPLAINT
(7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
153. The RICO Conspiracy Defendants conspired to commit (and committed) two
(2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and
premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity, i.e. a continuing, specific threat of
their respective racketeering activities, also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C.
1962(d).
154. As set forth in paragraphs 137 to 138, the RICO Conspiracy Defendants
conspired to violate and violated 18 U.S.C. sections 1341, 1343 and 1344(2) by using
the mail and wires to advance, conceal and further their scheme to defraud Plaintiffs
into authorizing financial institutions to release funds to entities in NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION.
155. The RICO conspiracy Defendants engaged in a pattern of activity, posmg a
threat of continued activity because their actions were part of a pattern of similar acts,
which were committed against other individuals who contribute money to entities in
NITHY ANAND A ORGANIZATION. Given the nature of the enterprise, i.e., use of
the mail and wires to advance, conceal and further a scheme to defraud individuals
into authorizing financial institutions to release funds to entities in NITHY ANANDA
ORGANIZATION, the RICO offenses will likely repeat into the future.
156. The RICO conspiracy Defendants' conduct constitutes a "pattern of
racketeering activity" under 18 U.S.C., section 1961 (5) due to these Defendants
ongoing use of the mail and wires to advance their scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and
;00034537.DOC:
COMPLAINT
68
contributors into authorizing financial institutions to release funds to entities m
2
3
NITHY ANANDA ORGANIZATION and therefore manifested continuity and
4 relatedness involving more than two acts in violation of 18 U.S.C., sections 1341,
5
1343 and 1344(2).
6
7
157. Plaintiffs' loss of money in the form of contributions based on fraud and deceit
8
was an injury to "Property" within the meaning of RICO because the asserted RICO
9
10
violations were the legal, or proximate, cause of Plaintiffs' injuries, as well as a
II
logical, and but for, cause.
12
158. Plaintiffs sustained a cognizable and quantifiable injury to Property, not
13
14
personal injuries (i.e., lost of the money contributed, plus I 0°/o interest since the date
15
of their payments).
16
17
159. The RICO Conspiracy Defendants should be required to account for all gains,
18
profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering in violation of
19
20
18 U .S.C. 1962( d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable state and federal Jaws.
21 160. Judgment should be entered for Plaintiffs and against the RICO Conspiracy
22
Defendants for Plaintiffs' actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages
23
24
attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), according to the best available
25
proof.
26
27
161. The RICO Conspiracy Defendants should pay to Plaintiffs treble damages,
28
under authority of 18 U.S.C. l964(d), for any gains, profits, or advantages
C01\1PL:\INT
!O!XU4537 DOC!
attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), according to the best available
2
3
proof.
4 162. The RICO Conspiracy Defendants should pay to Plaintiffs treble damages for
5
all damages they sustained as a result of these Defendants' several violations of 18
6
7
U.S.C. 1962(d), according to the best available proof.
8
163. The RICO Conspiracy Defendants should pay to Plaintiffs their costs of the
9
10
lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non-
11 judicial enforcement and all reasonable counsel's fees.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
164. All damages caused by the RICO Conspiracy Defendants and all gains, profits,
and advantages derived by them, from their several acts of racketeering in violation
of 18 U.S.C. l962(d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable state and federal
law(s), should be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES:
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.
IAGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
165. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated re-allege each and every allegation as set
forth above, and hereby incorporate the same by reference, as if all were set forth
fully herein.
166. Each of the Defendants' acts violated California's Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. ("UCL") by engaging in
:ooo3453 7. ooc:
COMPLAINT
70
unlawful, and/or unfair and/or fraudulent conduct. The UCL provides that '"unfair
2
3
competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
4 practice," including acts of intentional misrepresentation or concealment of material
5
facts.
6
7
167. Each of the Defendants' conduct violated the unlawful prong of the UCL
8
because Defendants violated Section 50l(c); 18 U.S.C. sees. 1341 (mail fraud), 1343
9
10
(wire fraud), 1344(2) (bank fraud) 1961 (5) and 1962(c) and (d) (civil RICO);
II
California Civil Code, Sections 1709, 2223, 2224 (California's Fraudulent Business
12
Practices Statute; California Civil Code, Section 1710 (same)); Cali fomia Penal
13
14
Code, Section 484 (Same).
15
168. Each of the Defendants violated the fraudulent and unfair prongs of the UCL
16
17
because they intentionally defrauded Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
18
169. As a result, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were denied vested Property
19
rights by each of the Defendants.
20
21 170. Each of the Defendants generated--and continue to generate--gains as a direct
22
result of its unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Plaintiffs and others
23
24
similarly situated are therefore entitled to ( 1) restitution and/or restitutionary
25
disgorgement of any and ill-gotten gains obtained by each of the Defendants as a
26
27
result of their UCL violations, (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under
28
California Business and Professions Code, section 17200 et seq.; and (3) reasonable
COMPLAINT
;0003..J537.00C;
attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1021.5, and any other applicable
2
3
statutory provision.
4
PRAYER
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for judgment against Defendants,
6
7
according to proof, as follows:
For general, special and non-pecuniary damages;
For interest at the maximum legal rate;
For the amount of treble (triple) damages, with interest, under RICO from the
Individual Defendants;
For compensatory damages arising out of mental anguish, emotional distress,
personal humiliation, damage to Plaintiffs' reputation and other non-economic
harms resulting from Defendants' intentional conduct;
For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section
I 021.5; RICO, and any other applicable statutory provision;
21 f. For injunctive and restitutionary relief and other equitable relief such as a
22
receiver, constructive trust and unjust enrichment under RICO and the UCL;
23
24 g.
For exemplary and punitive damages; and
25
26
27
28
;0003-1537.00C;
COMPLAINT
'72
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: February 27, 2013 SHENOI KOES LLP
rrxl!/ C'/ '
B y : - - 4 ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - = - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ­
Ailan A. Shenoi
For Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT
DEMANDFORJURYTruAL
2
3
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial on all claims so triable.
4 Dated: February 27,2013 SHENOI KOES LLP
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
:oom45J7 ooc:
fXv1 c l ~ .
By: t J ! l ~ ~
Allan A. Shenoi
For Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT
74
EXHIBIT A
v
Name:
Address
Signature:
Date:
\
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Confidential
OHYANAPEETA CHARITABLE TRUST
INOlA:
N1thyanandapuri, Kallugopahalli,
Bidad1, Bangalore District
Karnataka. INDIA
0006:
SA\
L}{)
NON-fW. JSURE AGREEMENT
==
ThisNONOISClOSUR£ AGRHMfNl (the is made and entered
nto
this tK.. 3 :Zor;') ___________ ( .. EHective Date .. ) by
( .. Volunteer) and Ohyanapeet.l
:::haritable Trust
Volunteer understand'> that he/she is volunt.luly applymg lor the •teameng from the
Master- Program CProgram·l conducted by the foundatoon Volunteer decl.lre<, that to
promote the immen'>e benefit to hom as a person and hos lole in general. and woth a deep
desore to achieve fruillon of his spontual quest. he/-.he i<, volunta11ly oHetoug Ius
commitment of time and effort to serve. to volunteer. and to <,pread the mos<;oon of Sro
Nithyananda Swami the foundation and other soster organotatoons of the
Volunteer acknowledge<, the possobahty of substanhal pubhc and medoa ontere<,t on
foundation·s spiritual leader. Su NothyJnanda Swam• Cleader"') and foundatoon Volunteer
acknowledges that duflng the cour<;e of Volunteer·\ relataonshop and/o• commun•<.atoo"'>
with leader and/or foundation. Volunteer may have acce<.s to Confidentoal lnformatoon
and/or Confidential Materials (as defmed below) In consider atoon of the opportunoty to
have a relationship and/or communocatoon wllh leader. Foundation. and othec good and
valuable consideration. the receipt and suffioency of which is hereby acknowledged. the
undersigned parties agree as
1 for the purposes of thos Agreement ·confidential lnfOfmation- means all
information learned by Volunteer on conne<-tion wath the relationship between Volunteer
and leader and/or Foundation Of the provosoon of servoces Of goods by Volunteer to le.lder
Foundation. whether writlen. oral or observed Wathout limiting the gener ahty of
)
--- -
f\ .

0006
SA
NON-Ot:)(LOSURE AGREEMENT
the foregomg. Infor-mation .. 1ndudcs inform.Jt1on of .Joy odtUfe. with o.-
without further vvutten destgnation. relating to:
(a) the schedules. habits. places of H'\ldence. travel aHangemcnts or
plans. pr-operly. practices. interests. family, guests and/or events associated with o..-
f ound.1t10n.
(b) any techmques. mventions. processes. models. know-how . .lnd d1scoverios
developed. created. conceoved of. o..- reduced to pr.lchce by anyone associated with
foundation. Le.lder. or agents of foundation (includmg by Volunteer •n the course of
Volunteer's relationship wtth leader and/or Foundation);
(c) pol1cies. and other forms of written and nonwutten (1ncludmg mtangible}
data. expeuence. and mformat1on relating to le.lder. found.Jllon. and/or the1r followers or
agents.
(d) the serv1ces prov1ded by Volunteer to leader .lnd/or foundatiOn; and/or
., (e) any systems developed or under development lor use dt f oundJtoon' s or Leader's
___ }es of res1dence. 1ncludmg w1thout l1mitat10n. any inform.lhOn .lbout CJ<i<;tmg or
proposed secuuty eq01pment. '>ecurity mon1tor. or S('Cuflt y dt loc.H oons v1<,oted
Leader
.. Confidential Materiah" '>h.lll mean all tang1ble mater1Jh contdonong C onf•dent•al
lnlormatoon. 1ncludmg w1thout hm•tation, summaue">. notes. dr .1w1ng'>. photographs.
wr•tten or prmted documents or inform.lt1on rec.orded on dogitdl or electronic
med•a. whether mac.hme readable or user-readable
}__ No Confidential Information or Confidential Materials shall be used by
Volunteer except as required for Volunteer'<> performance of the required services tor
leader or foundation or as expressly authoriled in writmg by r oundation. Volunteer shall
not dtsclose or peumt the dtsclosure of any Conf•dential Information or Confidential
Mate11ah to any thud party without explicit written approvalm advance of any
'"'ch disclosure Wathout limiting the generality of the foregoing. Volunteer shall not
-
0006
SA
NO I' CLOSURE AGREEMENT
(a) be involved in the prepacalton of any book. artocle. stof)t. vtdeo or film
(fictionalized or otherwiw) about or that relates to or resembles f oundahon. leader.
leader's lamoly. luends. associates or business or per-;onal interests. or Volunteer's
rel<ttionsh•p with such andavaduah or g•ve interview<> regardang -;uch matter-;; or
(b) disclose the existt•nce of thi-; Agreement. the relationship betwt'en found<ttoon.
leader and Volunteer. or any information relating thereto. to any per-;on or enllty for any
purpo-;e. ancludong wothout hmatatoon. marketing or advertssing actavahes or a<-tiVohes that
imply endor-;ement of any pr aO•ct"•. services or products by foundation or leader
1 Volunteer sh.JII use Volunteer·-; best ellort s to protect .JII Confidenlldl
Information and Confidentral M<Heu.Jis Volunteer shall not make any duphcate copoes of
any Confidential Information or Confidential Mateual\. except as expre-;sly permstted by
4 Volunteer shall not•fy foundation promptly upon d•scovery ol any
un.Juthorlled u-;e or dosdn'>ure of Conftdentialtnformation or Conftdentral Matertals. or any
other breach of th•'> Agreement. and shall cooper ate woth f oundatlon on ever'f rea.,onablc
way to help foundation regam posse<;\ton of the Confidential Information or Conlsdenttal
Matenals and prevent their future unauthorized use At foundation's request or upon the
completion of any work lor or communications or relation-;hip wrth leader and/or
Found<ttion, Volunteer shall return all originals. copies. reproductions. and summarie-; of
Confidential Materials or. at foundation's option, Volunteer shall de-;troy Conftdential
Materi.1ls and certify in writing destruction of the same.
S Volunteer acknowledges that foundation desires to restrict the dtsclo\ure of
the existence and details of •to; .Jnd leader's relattonsh•p with Volunteer T e H ~ foH·.
· ·\Volunteer hereby agrees that Volunteer shall not:
)
-
lj-of-10
0006
SA'
NUN UL AC«EEME.NT
l.a) the n.tme of • or found .. tooo ""'thout the prior wnllen con\ent ol
or
lbl dt\-Ciose the exostence ol thos Agr.,.,ment. the n.Jiure of .any bet-een
Volunteer leader and/o• or Any inform.attOn disclosed to Volunteer
to or in rd.ltioo\hip to thi\ Agreement or Voluoteer·s reiJtoon\hop wllh or
foundatooo. • ol whether any ol the .:ue avad<1ble to the gener publoc
remedy for disclosure or use of (onfodenti.al lnlorm.atoon or Confodento.al
Mateu.ah or other bre.ach of thos Agreement .and that on the event of breJch or th<e<ltened
breach of this Agreement erther or leader sh.all be entolled. wothout w.lovong .1ny
other righh or rt>medies. to such on1unctive or equot.able • Voluntt>er .a\ may be
deemed proper by d court of competent au••sdiction Notwithst.andong the foreeomt,. of
Volunteer the proves ions of thi\ Agreement. f oundattOn. actin!) on llelo.Jif of I hell
-\d le.tder. sh.JII be entitled. on ..Jddotion to but not .a\ .a limo I on .any other remedoes
..._);aiUble to foundatiOn or leader. to recove• autom.ttte.tlly any proceeds or remuner.Jtion
of any nature receoved by Volunteer. duenly or mdlrenly_ m conneCloon woth or a\ a re\ull
of the do\Cio\ure or mo\use of Confodentoal lnformatoon or Confidential Mateflal\ or othc•
breach of thos Agreernent
1. AJI Confodento.al lnform;attOn and Coofodenlt.al .are and \h<lll rem.lon
the property of leader .and foundatiOn. By ioformatoon to Volunteer. neother
Foundation nor leader grants any express or implied rir;ht to other person. includmg
Volunteer. to .. ny such Confidentiallnform.ation or Confidential Material\
8 Nothtng in this Agreement is intended to restrict Volunteer lfom m.aking Any
dosclosutes required by law or legal proces'> If Volunteer rs requued 10 do\dosc Confidential
lnformatioo Of Confidential Material\ by l3w Of legal p<o<.e\s. Volunteer must unmedo.ttPiy
.·
)
0006
SA'
NON-OISCLOSUIH:: At;RH MH-n
notofy found.atton th.Jt f ound.atoon n•.ty thf' dnd/or "'ptotechve
otder _
9. Volunteet be tcsponsoble lo< Jny a<:toon<; of Volunt .. er th.Jt uc.lle a
bre.ach ol th•s Agreement and .any breJch by Volunt.,-.,r ol Volunteer·\ obltg.ations .as <>et
lonh on the Acknowledgement .and Agreement Volunteer sh.JII •ndemnity Found.atoon and
leader .Jnd hold them h.armleH ;ony brc;och by Volunteer of Volumt'er·\ obllg.atlon<;
lrom th•<> Agreement
lO lhos Agreement the enhre .tg•eemcot belwccn the • with
respecl to the subJ.:'Ct m.attc• he<eol and me<ge\ .til puor d•<><-uHoons between them as to
Conftdenlt;ol lnlorm.ttoon dod Conlodentt.al M,neuJI\ I Itt- "ghl\ ol f ound.lhon .lnd ledde•
under this Agreement .He supplemenul to .Jnd not "' pl.a<-t: ul dny other right5 they m.Jy
(}ave under I.Jw or othe< between the p.t<toe\ flus Agreement shOlOII not be
', odifled e•cept by a writtt>n acreement d.lted sub\equent to the ddtt: ol ttu\ Ag1eement
-,
and signed by foundatoon .and Volurllcc< In the event ol .Jny • between thos
Agreement .and any confodento.Jioty provo\tOil\ ol .any othe• .tt:feement between •
and Foundatoon o• It- .ode• _ th(.• te•n•'> of Uus • '"·'" dJiply to the e•tenl ol .,ud•
wdived by Joy a<1 Of .J<qu•e'-<ence on the part ol found.Jtton or lc.ldl:'< Of thett Of
employees. but only by .an instrument on w-roune signed by .tuthontcd •eprcsent.ltive ol
foundlltooo No <w.trvef of <Joy p<OV1\•0n ol tho\ A(.reemenl sh.tll .a waiver of any
provisionh) or ol on dnother occnion
11. loc the right of Of leadec to \eelt or injunctive
relit:f. alt disputes d<isiog under thU Agreement or tebting to it\ provi\ion\ th.at (dnnot <K
in(Ofm.ally resolved by the p.Jrtles \h;,ll be submitted 10 bind10g albolt "' IC.arndt.tl...t.
INOlA '" d£(Ofd.ln<.e with the then dppl•£able commeHoal ol Arb•tt .atlon
0006-
SA\
NO iSCLOSURE AGREEMENT
and judgment upon an award <ohall be entered in the Superior Court of the Stale
of K.unataka. INOlA
12. If any party to this Acreement employs attorney'i to enfone any righH arising
out of or on relation to thos Agreement. the prevailing party <;haH be enutled to re<:over
reawnable attorney<>' lees. Thos Agreement shall be construed and controlled by the laws uf
the State of KARNATAICA If any provision of thi<> Agreement sf\;lll be held by a court of
competent jurisdiction or an arbitr<1tor to be invalid. or unenforceable. the rem<1ining
provision<, shall rem<tin In full force .lnd effect.
13 All obligations cre<Jtcd by this Agreement shdll survove tern11natoon of any
rel.ation<.hip a<, between the partie-; .1nd remdin in effect in perpetuity.
()
IN WITN£SS WHEREOf. the partie'i hereto have executed thi<. Agreement
for the «>VNOAOON VOLUNTHR
I

---
(Print N.ome) (Punt Name of Volunteer)
(Sicn.lltu<d
lt."JI f{-
•
crrtlel
.Serlft1'> ft.
j
(Addren)
J /) t) '>-
. __ _1___ ----------
(O.uf:)
\
.... \------------
f\
7 of- I o
00061
SA\
·o.OSUI:{£ AGRE(M£1'11
·--,.
fh•s addendum to the NONOISClOSUR[ AGR£[M[N I (the o; m.lde .md
1..-
ente<"ed into tho\ .iefSl'11et. _) 2oo)
by __J!r_i?_tl V}jJ.J'"j-tj•'\1 t-tj!i_____ .and
provodt"r< 0\rji;.CO: .tnd C:te.ltOr> of thi<. P•og• am lot Joy .tnd .til lt.tboloty th.tt rrught dfl"\t"
menttooed hert" but direHh- -oc ioduectly onvolved 10 the organaution. o•
· "foduct of the Progr .am. or any related ptog• .1m. •c:.pon<,able o• h.1ble to the Voluntcc• on
_)v mannt"f • lot any c:on<,equence'>. c:la•ms lo• d.lmaec\. dorcc:t or onduec:t.
· ari<,ong hom tht" Progt an•. Votuntet"r<, pao:oc:opAtoon on thte Of Vol .. ntce< \ \1\C of
tt"c:hnoques And P' .JC:t•C:c\ le.lH>t on the Progr .101
Al Votuntee• rc:-pre:.cnts .lod w.IH.JIIl\ th.Jt hc/\hc h.J\ the ught . .authoroty_ .tod
c:ap.lcity to enter onto thi<, Non-Oisc:losu•e Agreement and tho<, addendum .1nd to abidt" by all
of the term\ and coodttion\ of thi\ agreement. Undt"<' penalty of perjury.
affirms lh.lt he/she r:. over the age of 18 (ll year\ old. where 18 ,., not the .1ge ol m..J,ottty)
<ldutt oriented matffi..JI to be offensive or obje<tionable
{\
{0
'
\J.\)
. .
,. . -. :
(
NOH-OISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Al. Volunteer undemands the involve the learning and pr .u:tsce
of tantric seoeu associated with male and female «Stasy. induding the use of
sex\AI eo«cv fOf" ina eased connection. harmony. and lreedom.
Volunteer underst<ands these activities covld be and mentally chalengin&.
and nudity. access to visual images. graphic: vtsual depictk>ns. and
of nudity and sexual activity. dose physical proximity and intimacy. verbal and wrinen
desaiptions and audio sounds of a sexually oriented. and erotic nature. etc. By reading and
sisnins thu addendum. Volunteer irrevocably aclr.nowledges that he/she is voluntarily giving
his uncondition.ll of su<h x:tiv1ties and dtscharges the leader and the
Foundation. .1nd anyone ehe not sp«ifiully mentioned here but dorectty or indirectly
involved in the management. or conduct of any such progr-.ms from any
liability. direct or 1ndue<t. arising from such activitic-..
C)
A4. Volunteer certifie<; that he/she h not <;uHering from any physi<.al. mental. or
psychological dasorden Of talung any medicine'i for any physiLJI. mental. or psychologi<.al
disorders that would interlere with his/her ability to participate in •my of the a<.tivities of
the Foundation
A5. Volunteer dearly understands and K.CepU fua responsibility for his/her
xUoru during his/her oassodatkm with the leader and the foundation. Volunteer ;also
waives any and all rights that he/she/she may to bring any law suit or daims against
the leader or Foundation or anyone else not mentioned here. but directly or
indilectly lmtoNed In the mao.lCement <and conduct of the Program.
A£. Volunteer dearly and agrees that the foundation or the leader. in
p.-oviding the Program any related do not make daims.
0007
SA
NON -uiSCLOSURE AGREEMENT
wanantio, 00' about the lodtvldual or group outcome: of the Prog.-am -:>n
P"'rticipant.s.
IN WITN£SS WH£R£0F. the hc:u:to have: executed this Addendum to the Non·
0\sdosu.-e Agreement.
Jor rOUNOAOON
(Prim N.1mc:l
I ilA_ · f'l: te.y o. rad I o.. A o. .JA

' )
lh<tnl<.s.
Jyotir
c.ne \tudies of court\ not allowing ases <tg<tinu h<t.re
been du solved
• for protecting and • and ponlbty volunteen. we will have tail
coverage insunn<e lor 6 yean ;,her the diHolution.
• The in1unnce ha\ two kinds ol Incident-based coverage and
Q;,ims-rnade coverage Our 0&0 insur<tnce is d<tims made .lind we -ill cet such a
coverage a\ fail covenge f<X 6 yean aher the eolitie1 are diHolved to cove.- all
the directon .and officen even .tfter the entities .tre dl\solved
• There h.ave been mulhple threat\ ollawsuits in person. in em.aal and over the
phone multiple time\. Also in priv.Jolt> we have heard about
various threat\ of lawsuit\ d\ -ell We have concerns to
our as weU They fuve bet>n guiding us on the course of ;,ction in each
of these steps
• There is a compl.aint filed with the Attomey Gene.,.rs office in California by Oouc
McKellar on Swamiji alleging ,.,rious of miscondue1 and iuegul.aritielo. The
Attorney Genenfs office reluws 10 dhclose the det.tih ol the complaint nor the
investigation proceu. Jhis is 01n unknown thai u bound to h;,unl the
organil arion
• CoH>pbints <ue known to h.ave been mdde to the Attorney Generafs office in the
State of Wdshington Jhis i\ .alleged to have been made by someone in hJch
position in Micro\oft and "'"'Y be a lew othen_ Our Attorneys h.ave ulr.c=d
to tind out del.lils
• Complaints .are 01ho .aHeged to loave been m01de to the Attorney Geneufs offiu:
in the Stale ol le•us The n.atu•e of the compbmt unknown at point ol
time. Our h.tve been d\ked to hnd out detaih_
• The threat ol se•ual hanument bw\uits eant in the \JS. There au: people who
h.ave eapreHed such concerns ol \uch happening 10 them. The thre.at
potential i\ gre;,ter due to the sl.ltutory n011ure of the cJaim_ Jhere are two kind\
of legal claims
• i lorl clalfn lhu d<Jim as due to a \itu<Jtion not m<tndated by bw.
I e g. the l01dy \41y•ng McDonald\ didn"t "-'Y coffee is hot is-' 10¥1
claim McOon01kh ... as not required by bw to \dy the Coffee is hot
• ii_ Statutory claim. This i\ a d01im 01gaitnt violation ol a protection
offered by the bw_ for- e.g .. in teK.her-student rdationship. in the
scen01rio of a reutiondup between 41 student ;and
who are both aduft s. the student an ar-gue in CO\.Irt tlYt
sexual incident was a npe due the statutory obication on
of the teKher the organlurion fo.- the student to be protrtted.
A cbirn ..l hlcher chance of succeedinc in court.
• Ther-e are nun1be• of known ..ls wei as unknown We are
cettlng know more day by d;ay_
8haktaswami will get back on the pl..ln with further comments on Monday.
tl-
0082
SA
\
\
DistributionPian
SOI(c)(l)
400.000. lA
£ ~ . F
~ · S o-f l
,:-::_, • \,/I t .............
0082
SA
'l
J
\
l
0082•
SA\

•
(S4

SA\
0082E'
SA\i

Recommended Documents

Documents Similar To New Complaint of FRAUD and RACKETEERING against Nithyananda in USA - Feb 2013